Terminal tax liability cannot be extended to vessel agents by subordinate rules; recovery proceedings without statutory demand are void.

Section 69(2) of the Rangoon Development Trust Act placed liability to collect and pay terminal tax on the owner of the vessel, while section 69(3) referred to owner and agent only for returns. Rules made under section 95 could not enlarge that statutory liability, so the provisions purporting to impose tax liability on agents were ultra vires. Because the respondents were only agents and not persons liable for the tax, the statutory preconditions for demand and attachment under the Lower Burma Land and Revenue Act were not met. The demand and recovery proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction and void, and the affected property was entitled to be released from attachment.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of section 69(2) of the Rangoon Development Trust Act, the liability to collect and pay the terminal tax fell upon the owner of the vessel alone or also upon the agent of the owner, and whether the rules treating the agent as liable were ultra vires; whether the notice of demand and attachment proceedings taken under the Lower Burma Land and Revenue Act were valid when served on persons not liable for the tax.

Analysis: Section 69(2) imposed the duty to collect and pay the terminal tax on the owner of the vessel, while section 69(3) separately referred to both owner and agent only for the purpose of furnishing returns. The rules made under section 95 could not enlarge the substantive liability created by the Act. On that construction, the rules purporting to make the agent liable to collect or pay the tax were inconsistent with the Act and, to that extent, ultra vires. Since the respondents were only agents and not owners, they were not persons liable for the tax. Under sections 44 and 45 of the Lower Burma Land and Revenue Act, recourse to the special recovery procedure depended on a valid demand served upon a person liable and on the existence of arrears; those conditions were not satisfied, so the execution proceedings lacked jurisdiction and were void.

Conclusion: The liability for the terminal tax did not extend to the agents, the impugned rules were ultra vires in so far as they imposed such liability, and the proceedings for demand and attachment were null and void. The respondents were entitled to a declaration and release of their property from attachment.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate legislation cannot impose tax liability beyond the scope of the parent Act, and recovery proceedings under a special statute are without jurisdiction unless the statutory conditions precedent to demand and execution are strictly fulfilled.

---