| 21/8/2008 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 4/51 |
Decided: 19 April, 1951 |
   |
|
Appeal declared null as it was not made on the prescribed form - Appeals (Board of Special Commissioners) Rules
|
The Commissioner raised a nullity plea on the grounds that the appeal was not made on the forms prescribed by the Appeals Rules. Appellant replied that although he had not used the prescribed form (Form A) he had used textually the same wording used in the said form.
The Board compared the contents of the said Rules with those of other laws, regarding procedure and forms, mainly the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure and the Rent Restriction Act.
The Board noted that according to the Rent Restriction Act an appeal made on a form which was not the prescribed form could not be considered null, provided that it contained all the details as laid down by article 26 of that Act. On the other hand, the provisions of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure which were cited by the Board consider an appeal not made on the prescribed form as invalid.
The Board held that the forms under the Rent Restriction Act served only for illustration purposes, while those under the Income Tax Act and the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure were imposed "ad validitatem". Besides, the words "in Form A" and "in Form B" used in the Appeals Rules showed clearly that the intention of the law was that these were the only valid forms which could be used.
Finally, the Board held that although the Appeals Rules empowered the Board to allow any amendment to be made in the application for the purpose of making it clearer they did not empower it to allow the use of forms other than those prescribed. The Board upheld the Commissioner's preliminary plea and rejected the appeal as null.
An appeal was entered before the Court from this decision (see case no. 4). The Court confirmed the decision but for different grounds than those brought forward by the Board.
|
|
|
|
|