1. On the 3 March 2025, Peter Evans and Roger Evans[2], ('applicants') lodged an application to review a decision under s 22 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic) ('VL Act').
2. The application was for the review of a single valuation, the Site Value ('SV') of the property located at 73 Flinders Street, Mentone at the relevant date for the valuation of 1 January 2019[3].
3. The SV under review by the respondent is $390,000, the applicants contended the SV should be $0.
4. The applicants submitted that the decision under review was a deemed decision stemming from an objection lodged on 6 December 2024[4].
5. The application was submitted with the following documents:
   • Council Rate Notice dated 15 July 2019
   • Land Tax Assessment - level of value date 1 January 2022 (page 3)
   • Land Tax Assessment - level of value date 1 January 2021 (page 3)
   • Land Tax Assessment - level of value date 1 January 2020 (page 3)
   • Land Tax Assessment - level of value date 1 January 2019 (page 3)
   • Email from State Revenue Office dated 31 October 2024
   • Letter to State Revenue Office from Anthony Bullard, Prior Law dated 22 March 2024
   • Letter to State Revenue Office from Mr Peter Evans dated 6 December 2024
   • Letter of Valuation Objection dated 3 March 2025.
6. The Tribunal issued an Order on 7 March 2025 listing the matter for a practice day hearing on 16 April 2025 to consider amongst other things, whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the application.
7. Following the practice day hearing on 22 April 2025, the Tribunal issued the following orders:

1. On 24 April 2025, Valuer-General Victoria ('VGV') provided the following response:

The Respondent requests the Tribunal take notice that the Respondent agrees in accordance with Clause 98, schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) that the Presiding Member decide any question of law that may arise from the submissions. The Tribunal notes the Applicant indicated his agreement verbally at the practice day hearing.

1. The relevant sections of the VL Act are as follows:

(5) A notice of valuation must be served on each person within or outside the municipal district in respect of which the valuation has been made who is or will be liable to pay a rate made by the rating authority for the municipal district or a tax levied by the collection agency in respect of land outside the municipal district. > > _(6) A notice of valuation must - _ > > (a) identify the land in respect of which the rate or tax is or will be payable; and > > (b) show the capital improved value, the site value and the net annual value as assessed in respect of the land; and > > (ba) show the AVPCC allocated to the land; and > > (c) state the date at which the value of land was assessed. > > 16 Who may object? > > (1) A person aggrieved by a valuation of any land made or caused to be made by a valuation authority may lodge a written objection to that valuation, on any one or more of the grounds set out in section 17, with the authority that gave the notice of valuation. > > _(2) An objection must - _

(a) contain the prescribed information (if any); and

(b) give particulars of the bases of valuation to which objection is made; and

(c) state the grounds on which the objection is based.

(3) An objection must not be disallowed merely because of a failure to comply with subsection (2).

_(3A) In addition to the requirements of subsection (2), if - _

(a) a ground for the objection is that the value assigned is too high or too low; and

_(b) the value assigned is not less than the prescribed amount - _

the objection must state the amount that the objector contends is the correct value.

(3B) An amount stated in an objection in accordance with subsection (3A) is not binding on the objector....

(6) Despite subsection (1), a person referred to in subsection (5) must give written notice of an objection to the person or body that issued the assessment of the rate or tax and to the valuation authority that caused the valuation to be made.

(6A) A person who has been served with a notice of valuation and who is subsequently assessed for land tax ,commercial and industrial property tax or windfall gains tax based on that valuation is deemed to be a person aggrieved by the valuation when the person receives the notice of assessment, if the person is aggrieved by the base or bases of valuation that were used to assess the relevant tax on any one or more of the grounds set out in section 17.

...

17 Grounds for objection

_The grounds for an objection are - _

(a) that the value assigned is too high or too low;

(b) ...

_An objection must be lodged - _

(a) within 2 months after the notice of valuation is served; or

_(b) in the case of a person referred to in section 16(5) - _

(i) if a notice of assessment of the rate or tax was served on the person by a rating authority, within 2 months after the notice was served; or

(ii) if a notice of assessment of the rate or tax was not served on the person by a rating authority and the person is the occupier of the land, within 4 months after the date of issue specified on the notice; or

(c) in the case of a person referred to in section 16(6A) or (6AB) - within 2 months after receiving the notice of assessment of land tax, commercial and industrial property tax or windfall gains tax (as the case requires).

...

21 Determination of objection

(1) An objection must be determined in accordance with section 20 and this section.

(2) ...

(2A) A valuation authority with whom a valuation has been lodged or to whom an objection has been referred under subsection (2), must refer the objection to the valuer who made the valuation.

(2B) A valuer to whom an objection has been referred must provide the objector with a reasonable opportunity to discuss his or her objection with the valuer.

_(3) Within 4 months after receiving the objection, the valuer must - _

(a) if he or she considers that no adjustment in the valuation is justified - give the objector written notice of that decision; or

(b) ...

22 Application to VCAT for review

(1) An objector who is dissatisfied with the decision of a valuer or the valuer-general on the objection may apply to VCAT for review of the decision.

(2) If the valuer for a valuation authority has not given an objector notice of a decision on the objection or a copy of a recommendation under section 21(3)(b)(ii) within 4 months after the objection was lodged with the valuation authority, the valuer is deemed to have made a decision that no adjustment in the valuation is justified.

(3) If the valuer-general has not given an objector notice of a decision under section 21(5) within 2 months after a copy of a recommendation was given to the objector under section 21(3)(b)(ii), the valuer-general is deemed to have made a decision disallowing the recommended adjustment.

_(4) An application under this section must be made - _

(a) in the case of an application in respect

of a deemed decision referred to in subsection (2) - within 9 months after the date on which the objection was lodged with the valuation authority;

(b) in the case of an application in respect

of a deemed decision referred to in subsection (3) - at any time after the end of the 2 month period referred to in that subsection;

(c) in any other case - within 30 days after the date notice of the decision is given to the objector.

(5) An applicant under this section must serve a copy of the application on the valuation authority.

(6) The valuation authority must, within 1 month after being served with a copy of the application, forward to the principal registrar of VCAT the notice of objection, copies of any notices given under section 21 in connection with the objection and any information given or submissions lodged under section 20 in connection with the objection.

(7) The principal registrar of VCAT must notify the valuer-general of an application under this section.

(8) Despite subsection (2), the valuer for a valuation authority may give an objector notice of a decision on the objection or a copy of a recommendation under section 21(3)(b)(ii) more than 4 months after the objection was lodged with the valuation authority.

(9) Despite subsection (3), the valuer-general may give an objector notice of a decision under section 21(5) more than 2 months after a copy of a recommendation was given to the objector under section 21(3)(b)(ii).

10. The relevant section of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic) ('TA Act') is as follows:

96 Objection

_(1) A taxpayer may lodge a written objection with the Commissioner if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with - _

(a) an assessment, other than a compromise assessment; or

...

(ca) a valuation made for or on behalf of the Commissioner under section 21(1)(b) of the Land Tax Act 2005 by the Valuer-General or a valuer nominated by the Valuer-General that is used by the Commissioner in an assessment of land tax or commercial and industrial property tax; or

(cb) a valuation made for or on behalf of the Commissioner under section 13 of the Windfall Gains Tax Act 2021 by the Valuer-General or a valuer nominated by the Valuer-General that is used by the Commissioner in an assessment of windfall gains tax; or

(d) a decision of the Commissioner under the Payroll Tax Act 2007.

(1A) A reference in subsection (1)(d) to a decision does not include a refusal by the Commissioner to refund tax paid or purportedly paid by the taxpayer.

(1B) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that an amount by which tax is overpaid is taken to be tax for the purposes of subsection (1A).

(2) No court or administrative review body, including the Tribunal, has jurisdiction or power to consider any question concerning an assessment or decision referred to in subsection (1), except as provided by this Part.

(3) A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with a valuation referred to in subsection (1)(cb) and lodges a written objection in relation to that valuation must object to both valuations used by the Commissioner in the assessment of windfall gains tax, regardless of whether the grounds for the objection relate to only one of those valuations.

106 Right of review or appeal

_(1) If - _

(a) a taxpayer is dissatisfied with the Commissioner's determination of the taxpayer's objection; or

_(b) 90 days (not including any period of suspension under section 102) have passed since a taxpayer's objection was received by the Commissioner and the Commissioner has not determined the objection - _

the taxpayer, in writing, may request the Commissioner to refer the matter to the Tribunal or to treat the objection as an appeal and cause it to be set down for hearing at the next sittings of the Supreme Court.

_(2)The taxpayer's request - _

(a) in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1)(a), must be made within 60 days after the date of service on the taxpayer of the notice of the Commissioner's determination of the objection; or

(b) in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1)(b), may be made at any time after the 90 day period (not including any period of suspension under section 102).

(3) Subject to section 107, within 60 days after the request, the Commissioner must refer the matter for review or cause the objection to be set down for hearing accordingly.

1. The applicants relied upon an objection lodged with the State Revenue Office on 22 March 2024 by Prior Law. The objection pertained to two customer numbers (016359638 and 108150152) relating to Land Tax assessments issued to Sheila Maurine Evans (dec).
2. Customer number 016359638, assessment number 33160491 relates to the relevant valuation date of 1 January 2019 and included the property at 73 Flinders Street, Mentone which is the property in the application for review lodged at VCAT on 3 March 2025.
3. Customer number 108150152 relates to another property at 84 Melba Parade, Anglesea that is part of a separate proceeding before the Tribunal (L0016/2025).
4. Anthony Bullard, Prior Law in his letter dated 22 March 2024, stated that he was instructed on behalf of the executors of her estate and provided the following instructions:

Under Customer Number 108150152:

I am instructed to object to the valuation for the property at 84 Melba Parade, Anglesea 3230.

Under Customer Number 016359638:

An assessment number 33160491 dated 26 January 2024 has been issued to the taxpayer under the above Customer Number for the 2020 year listing three properties as taxable. Property number 2 - 73 Flinders Street, Mentone 3194 was the taxpayers principal place of residence during the relevant period.

An assessment number 68424472 dated 26 January 2024 has been issued to the taxpayer under the above Customer Number for the 2021 year listing three properties as taxable. Property number 2 - 73 Flinders Street, Mentone 3194 was the taxpayers principal place of residence during the relevant period.

An assessment number 68424498 dated 26 January 2024 was issued to the taxpayer for the 2022 year listing three properties. Property number 2 - 73 Flinders Street, Mentone 3194 was correctly classified as the taxpayer's principal place of residence for the relevant period.

An assessment number 68424511 dated 26 January 2024 was issued to the taxpayer for the 2023 year listing three properties. Property number 2 - 73 Flinders Street, Mentone was correctly classified as the taxpayer's principal place of residence for the relevant period.

I am instructed to object to the assessments issued for the 2020 year and the 2021 year on the basis that the assessment incorrectly records the property at 73 Flinders Street, Mentone as being taxable property when the assessments should record that property as being exempt as the principal place of residence of the taxpayer.

In relation to this objection, I request that you please issue corrected assessments for the 2020 and 2021 years.

I am also instructed to object to each of the four assessments in respect of the valuation recorded in each of the assessments for the property at 84 Melba Parade, Anglesea 3230 on the basis that the valuation is too high.

1. The applicants also submitted with the application form the following letter of objection dated 3 March 2025, extract as follows:

... > > Objection to backdated Land Tax assessments for Sheila Maurine Evans. These were dated 26 January 2024. > > Our objections were made by letter[sic] 22 March 2024 via Mr Anthony Bullard of Prior Law, McKinnon. Please see Attachment 1 - copy of letter Prior Law 22 March 2024. ('Letter to SRO.pdf') > > It is our view that for the 2020 year and 2021 year the assessments[sic] incorrectly records the property at 73 Flinders Street, Mentone as being taxable property when the assessments should record that property as being exempt because it was the principal place of residence of the taxpayer.

In that letter Kate Martin made the key points:

"A PPR [Principal Place of Residence] exemption was active for the above property from 2 August 2019 until 20 February 2023. Therefore the 2020 to 2023 land tax assessments are correct and fully paid".

On 6 December 2024 a reply to Kate Martin was sent by Peter Evans. We made allowance for the Christmas 2024 period for a reply from Kate Martin. However there has been no reply from Kate Martin.

...

In brief, the four (4) Exhibits clearly show, using graphical overlays to pinpoint the problem, that there were two (2) Assessments where the PPR was not taken into account.

1. VGV submit that s 16(6A) of the VL Act applies, and that an objection was lodged within 2 months after receiving notice of assessment of Land Tax in accordance with s 18(c) of the VL Act.[5]
2. Pursuant to s 16(6A) of the VL Act:

A person who has been served with notice of valuation and who is subsequently assessed for land tax, commercial and industrial property tax or windfall gains tax based on that valuation is deemed to be a person aggrieved by the valuation when the person receives the notice of assessment, if the person is aggrieved by the base or bases of valuation that were used to assess the relevant tax on any one or more of the grounds set out in section 17.

3. VGV maintain its submissions that the Prior Law letter does not comply with the strict requirements of s 17 of the VL Act and therefore is not an objection for the purposes of s 16 of the VL Act. Thus, the applicants have no right to apply to the Tribunal pursuant to s 22 (1) of the VL Act.[6]

1. Sheila Maurine Evans (dec) was served with a notice of valuation by way of a Council Rate Notice issued on 15 July 2019 and a Land Tax Reassessment Notice dated 26 January 2024 and was entitled to object to the valuation under s 16(6A) of the VL Act.
2. The Council Rate Notice contained all the required information under s 15 of the Notice of Valuation.
3. A Land Tax Notice was issued on 26 January 2024 for the Land Tax Year 2020 that relates to the valuation for the relevant date 1 January 2019.

1. On 22 March 2024, Prior Law on behalf of the Applicants, wrote to the State Revenue Office (SRO) in relation to a property at 84 Melba Avenue, Anglesea (not the subject to this proceeding) and the property at 73 Flinders Street, Mentone.
2. In relation to 73 Flinders Street, Mentone for the relevant date of 1 January 2019 the subject of this proceeding, the applicants representative stated:

1. In conclusion, the letter of 22 March 2024 stated:

1. VGV submits that although the applicants had a right to object to a Land Tax assessment pursuant to s 16(6A) of the VL Act within the required timeframes, there was no valid objection. Section 16(a) of the VL Act requires the right to object be based on one or more of the grounds set out in s 17 of the VL Act. Effectively, since a PPR exemption is not one of the available grounds, there is no valid objection.
2. The applicants submit that the zero valuation is not because they consider the SV to be zero, but because they consider the taxable value should be zero, reflecting the application of a PPR Exemption.
3. The letter of objection by Prior Law dated the 22 March 2024 clearly states:

I am instructed to object to the valuation for the property at 84 Melba Parade, Anglesea ... > > I am instructed to object to the assessments issued for the 2020 year and the 2021 year on the basis that the assessment incorrectly records the property at 73 Flinders Street, Mentone as being taxable property when the assessments should record that property as being exempt as the principal of residence of the taxpayer...(emphasis added)

4. Under s 96 (1)(a) of the TA Act, a taxpayer may lodge a written objection with the Commissioner if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with an assessment in s 96(1):

_(1) A taxpayer may lodge a written objection with the Commissioner if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with - _

(a) an assessment, ...; or

...

(ca) a valuation made for or on behalf of the Commissioner under section 21(1)(b) of the Land Tax Act 2005 by the Valuer-General or a valuer nominated by the Valuer-General that is used by the Commissioner in an assessment of land tax or commercial and industrial property tax; or

...

1. In The 601 Management Company Pty Ltd (ACN 145 343 826) v Commissioner of State Revenue - Legal Services (Taxation) [2011] VCAT 2129 (601 Pty Ltd v Commissioner), the Commissioner contended that what has occurred entails a purported invocation of the Tribunal's jurisdiction which simply does not exist. The Commissioner goes first to the TA Act which deals with the assessment of liabilities under State tax laws and the Tribunal review or review by the Supreme Court under statutory appeal. The Commissioner contends that this statute lays down the sole means whereby the validity of a tax assessment may be challenged under Section 106 of the TA Act. [7]
2. Deputy President McNamara (as was then known) concluded at paragraphs 11 and 12:

...this Tribunal is a statutory Tribunal which has the powers set out in the statutes which constitute it and grant it jurisdiction. It is not a superior court of record and therefore it has no implied or inherent powers or jurisdiction The Supreme Court could, if persuaded that the Commissioner is obliged to refer the objection on this assessment, order him so to do; but the Tribunal could not. Therefore whoever is right about the true construction of Section 106 it says nothing about the validity and operability of this proceeding. > > Frivolous, vexatious and lacking in substance are very pejorative terms. However in my view they are properly used here. In this context, namely Section 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act and Order 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, they refer merely to matters which are not legally properly based. To invite the Tribunal to invoke a jurisdiction which it does not have is in that category. In the special way that these words are used in Section 75 this proceeding is frivolous and vexatious. It is proper therefore that I make an order of dismissal which I propose to do.

3. The Tribunal finds that there was no objection to the valuation at the relevant date of 1 January 2019 for the property at 73 Flinders Street, Mentone.
4. The applicants lodged an objection to the Land Tax assessment (at the relevant date of 1 January 2019 for the property at 73 Flinders Street, Mentone) which is not reviewable under s 22 of the VL Act.
5. It is apparent that the real objection of the applicants is to the designation of the property as 'taxable land' for land tax purposes, rather than, as 'exempt land' (on the basis that the property was the principal place of residence of Mrs Evans (dec)). This is a case that concerns the assessment, not the value of the property.
6. Moreover, there is no ability for the applicants to directly seek a review of an assessment to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is contained in s 106(1) of the TA Act and stipulates the taxpayer, in writing, may request the Commissioner to refer the matter to the Tribunal or to treat the objection as an appeal and cause it to be set down for hearing at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. There is no ability for the applicants to seek a review of an assessment directly to the Tribunal.

1. Consequently, the application for review must be summarily dismissed under s 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) because it is misconceived.

[1] The submissions of the parties have all been considered. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all the material will be cited or referred in these reasons.

[2] The application was lodged in the name of Mr Peter Graham Evans and at the request of the applicant amended to Mr Peter Evans and Mr Roger Evans by Order dated 22 April 2025.

[3] The relevant date of the assessment is 31 December 2019.

[4] The date of the original objection was the letter from Prior Law of 22 March 2024. The date of 6 December 2024 was the date of a further letter in response by Mr Peter Evans.

[5] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions dated 16 April 2025, [4].

[7] 601 Pty Ltd v Commissioner, [3] & [4].