REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BUTTON J:
1 The Plaintiff (Mesha Feet) applied to set aside a statutory demand issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. Mesha Feet contends it is a solvent company, is not indebted to the taxation authorities, discharged its 2021 taxation liability with a "Promissory Note", and discharged its 2022 taxation liability with a "Bill of Exchange". By its originating process, Mesha Feet also contended it is owed an amount pursuant to an alleged default on a unilateral "Notice of Payment" contract, however, Mesha Feet made no submissions in support of a contention that the statutory demand should be set aside on the basis of an offsetting claim.
2 The proceeding came before me on an application for review of a decision of a Registrar dismissing the originating process. Mesha Feet and the First Defendant provided written submissions. There was previously a Second Defendant, but that individual is an employee of the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO) and not a necessary party. The named Second Defendant did not file a notice of address for service. I made orders during the hearing removing the Second Defendant as a party to the proceeding. Accordingly, these reasons refer to "the Defendant", being the First Defendant.
3 I granted leave for Mesha Feet to be represented by its director, Claude Tobgui. That leave was granted as the Court was, during the interlocutory stages of the proceeding, informed that the company had been unable to find lawyers willing to take on the proceeding and advance the arguments those controlling Mesha Feet wished to advance. That Mesha Feet had trouble finding solicitors to put its case is not surprising.
4 Be that as it may, Mesha Feet's arguments must be assessed on their merits.
5 Mesha Feet read the affidavits of Claude Togbui dated 16 February 2024 and 7 June 2024. It also tendered a document by which it asked some questions of the ATO, and the ATO's response to those questions. Mesha Feet also relied on a Notice to Admit and the Defendant's response to that document. The Defendant read an affidavit of Sriyan Wijesinghe dated 7 December 2023, an affidavit of Namitesh Prasad dated 13 December 2023 and a further affidavit of Namitesh Prasad dated 1 Mach 2024.
