Summit Grain Investment Australia Pty Ltd v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria & CSR [2013] VSC 383
This matter arose from an investigation then afoot by the Commissioner under the Act into whether an acquisition of shares by the plaintiff was liable for duty under the Duties Act 2000. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief from the Supreme Court against the Attorney-General and the Commissioner in respect of issues that would impact on the outcome of the investigation.
The plaintiff's principal argument was that this course of action was appropriate as progression of the matter pursuant to the statutory scheme of the TAA would likely involve a costly valuation dispute, as well as a protracted dispute concerning whether various items of property were chattels or fixtures.
The Supreme Court found the plaintiff had not made out the existence of circumstances that would favour the granting of declaratory relief, having regard to the specialised procedures and remedies available to the plaintiff under the TAA.
