The Applicant's representative submitted that the Tribunal ought consider varying or revoking the Guillotine Direction so that the practical outcome would be that the time for compliance with it would have been extended such that the Applicant's lodgements (see [5] above) would then be considered to be within time. It was argued that should the Tribunal feel inclined to do so it would represent the most efficient way for the application to be brought back 'online' without the need for a formal reinstatement application being made.
The Applicant's representative acknowledged that he could point to no authority where s 86 had been used in such a way but submitted that the language of the section led to a conclusion that it could be deployed to vary or revoke "any orders" made by the Tribunal (including dismissal orders).
The Respondent's counsel, who was not on prior notice of such a request being made, submitted in response that in the circumstances of this case even if the power was available (and she didn't concede it was) it wouldn't be appropriate given the Guillotine Direction had been required to secure the Applicant's compliance with general timetabling obligations. In her view the more appropriate path was for the Applicant to take steps to make an application for reinstatement under s102(7) and, should the Tribunal be satisfied that the Application ought be reinstated, for that to occur.
I agree with the view of the Respondent in that regard. Without having considered any authority on the matter I would say the following:

Finally, the above views in no way preclude the Applicant from making a reinstatement application under s102 of the ART Act. To the extent it may be considered that a notice issued by the Tribunal for the purpose of s102 is a preconditional to such an application for reinstatement being made I will give an administrative instruction to our registry that such a notice be sent to the Applicant on the same day these reasons are provided.

[1] Directions had been initially made on 17 July 2024 but were extended on 15 November 2024 and then again on 10 January 2024)

[2] see Senior Member O'Loughlin (as he then was) citing with approval Senior Member McCabe (as he then was) in Carey v Commissioner of Taxation (2014) 145 ALD 236 at [22]

Review Tribunal Act 2024

Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2014(Cth)ss 102(5), 102(7)._

Australian Gold Dealers Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 989 (10 July 2025)

Berry v Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCA 1244

De Simone v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] AATA 1005

Haines v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] ARTA 461;

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] ARTA 242

Assaf v Tax Practitioners Board [2024] ARTA 47

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (5)

Australian Gold Dealers Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 989 (10 July 2025)