Société Royal Gardens et Compagnie & Ors v The Mauritius Revenue Authority & Anor, Court of Appeal - Privy Council, June 29, 2010, [2010] UKPC 11

Resolution Date:June 29, 2010
Issuing Organization:Privy Council
Actores:Société Royal Gardens et Compagnie & Ors v The Mauritius Revenue Authority & Anor

[2010] UKPC 11

Privy Council Appeal No 0050 of 2009


Socit Royal Gardens et Compagnie & 138 Others


The Mauritius Revenue Authority

From the Supreme Court of Mauritius


Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Walker Lord Brown Lord Clarke


Lord Brown


29 June 2010

Heard on 29 April 2010

Appellant Respondent

Mr Ivan Collendavelloo, Philip Baker QC

S.C. Rajeshsharma Ramloll Michael King Fat Marika Lemos

(Instructed by MA Law (Instructed by Royds LLP) Solicitors LLP)


This is a most unusual case. In a nutshell the facts are these. The appellant taxpayers, consequent on certain transactions and arrangements, claimed various capital allowances whereby they showed tax losses for the year 1994/1995. The Commissioner of Income Tax (since replaced by the respondent Revenue Authority) thought the purpose of these arrangements to have been tax avoidance and by letter dated 24 June 1999 determined accordingly that they were void pursuant to section 44 of the Income Tax Act 1974 (the Commissioner's first determination). By the same letter the Commissioner also adjusted the losses in any event from Rs196,111,885 to Rs111,361,885 pursuant to sections 28A and 32A of the 1974 Act (the Commissioner's second determination). The taxpayers appealed against both these determinations to the Tax Appeal Tribunal (since replaced by the Assessment Review Committee) which on 20 December 2002 upheld their appeal with regard to the first determination. By letter dated 24 January 2003 the Commissioner maintained his second determination and stated that the appellants' tax liability would be adjusted accordingly. The appellants sought judicial review of that decision on the ground that it contravened the final and binding effect of the Tribunal's unappealed determination of 20 December 2002. By judgment dated 30 April 2008 the Supreme Court (Matadeen SPJ and Balgobin J) dismissed that application, holding that the Tribunal's determination was binding on the parties only to the extent that there had been a determination on the issue in question and that there had been no such determination on the second issue.

The taxpayers now appeal to the Board by leave of the Supreme Court granted on 15 January 2009. It may at once be noted that before their Lordships the appellants speedily disavowed any contention that the second issue had in fact been determined by the Tribunal so as to be chose juge (their essential argument before the Supreme Court). Rather they contended that at some stage before the Tribunal's determination (which followed a series of written and, finally, oral submissions) the Commissioner was to be regarded as having abandoned his second determination so as to become estopped from subsequently reasserting it after the Tribunal failed to deal with it. The respondent Revenue Authority for its part submitted to the contrary that it was rather the taxpayers who should be regarded as having abandoned their appeal against the Commissioner's second determination and, since it had been for them to make good their appeal, the second determination was accordingly conclusive against them.

  1. With that brief introduction, their Lordships must now return to the facts albeit with no need to recount these in any great detail. There were in all 139 appellants before the Tribunal although, as the Board will later explain, the appeals of the last four came to be adjourned. The first appellant was constituted as a limited partnership

    on 20 January 1994, with the second to ninth appellants (the third to ninth also being limited partnerships) as associates. The tenth to one hundred and thirty-ninth appellants were the associates of the third to ninth appellants. Thus the first appellant was largely a partnership of partnerships.

    On 27 April 1994 the first appellant purchased from Blue Sun (Mauritius) Ltd (in compulsory winding up) the leasehold interest in, and uncompleted buildings and structures of, a proposed hotel (The Mariya Hotel) for the sum of Rs110m. By 30 June 1994 the first appellants had spent a further Rs150,123,363 towards the completion of the hotel (which was finally completed in December 1994) and for the purchase of plant, equipment, furniture and fittings.

    On 3 August 1994 the third to ninth appellants exchanged their interests in the first appellant for shares in the second appellant so that the first appellant became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the second appellant.

    In its income tax return for the year of assessment 1994/1995 the first appellant claimed investment and initial allowances of the total capital expenditure incurred, Rs260,123,363, its...

To continue reading