§ 54. Mr. GUYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the decision of the Court of Session in the stamp cases of Paul, Span and Blair v. the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in February, 1936, in which it was held that the Inland Revenue were not entitled, in a transaction for feuing lands for building, to charge additional Stamp Duty on the value of the building to be erected thereon, if he will consider the refunding by the Inland Revenue of such additional Stamp Duty illegally charged in cases between May, 1934, the date of another decision misinterpreted by the Inland Revenue, and February, 1936, where it has been paid by the feuars under protest but without formal adjudication?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison)No, Sir. It would be contrary both to law and to well-established rule to apply decisions of the courts retrospectively except in cases where the necessary steps have been taken to keep the matter open.
§ Mr. GUYDoes not the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that in this case there is a strong equitable ground for exemption?
§ Mr. MORRISONNo, I think the rule is one which should apply on both sides. If decisions of the court were applied retrospectively, when those decisions are in favour of the Crown, this would be justly resented by taxpayers.