//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the official source for authoritative text.
Commonwealth act
This Act has been repealed and is no longer in force. It is retained for historical reference.
The Excise Tariff Validation Act 1931 (s 1) retroactively declares certain excise duties to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully collected. The core rule is in section 3: any duties of Excise demanded or collected pursuant to the listed "Excise Tariff proposals" are "deemed to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected" for the period up to 29 February 1932, whether those amounts were taken before, during, or after the dissolution or expiry of the then House of Representatives.
"Excise Tariff proposals" is a defined list of proposed duties introduced into the House of Representatives on specified dates between 22 November 1929 and 29 July 1931, including amendments to the proposals introduced on 26 March 1931 (s 2). The Act’s effect is limited to duties connected to those specific proposals and to the stated time window (s 3).
Who pays: the persons or entities that were required to pay or who actually paid the excise duties described in s 3. The Act operates on duties already demanded or collected — it changes the legal character of those past transactions.
Who decides: the Parliament enacted the change (enacting words at the head of the Act and the short title in s 1). The Act itself specifies which proposed duties and which dates are covered (s 2).
Want the full deep dive?
Zoe can write the in-depth analysis on top of the summary above: how it works, who it affects and what each part actually does.
Direct links to the current provisions in Excise Tariff Validation Act 1931.
Zoe has indexed the source text for search and analysis. Use the official register for the original document and download formats.
View on official registerSourced from the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.
Apparent purpose: the text does not include an explanatory memorandum; mechanically, it converts previously demanded or collected excise amounts within the listed proposals and dates into amounts that are to be treated as lawfully imposed (s 3). That is, it removes or reduces legal uncertainty about the lawfulness of those past collections by declaring them lawful.
Direct legal consequence: once so "deemed," those past collections are treated in law as validly imposed and collected (s 3). That will bear on any legal claims about refunds, restitution, or the lawfulness of past demands tied to those tariff proposals, because the statute supplies the legal basis for lawfulness.
Who bears the cost: the persons who paid the excise duties are the immediate payers; by changing the legal status of their past payments the Act reduces their ability to successfully claim those payments back (s 3).
Who benefits and how: the collector of those duties (the Commonwealth revenue authority) benefits by having previously collected amounts treated as legally secure; this reduces the fiscal risk of having to repay or litigate those amounts.
Incentives and behaviour: after enactment, affected payers are less likely to bring successful legal challenges about the lawfulness of the specified collections because the statute expressly deems them lawful (s 3). Collectors face lower litigation and refund risk for the covered period and proposals.
Implementation risk: the Act is narrowly framed and operates by a statutory deeming clause (s 3). That limits implementation complexity: its effect is to change legal characterization of past events rather than to create ongoing administrative regimes.
Compliance burden: the Act does not impose new ongoing compliance obligations; it retroactively alters legal status of past collections (s 3). Any administrative action that would follow (for example, refusal of refund claims) will be an application of the deeming clause by administrators and courts.
Bureaucratic discretion: the statute itself leaves little scope for administrative discretion about the covered collections because it categorically deems them lawful when they fall within the defined proposals and timeframe (ss 2–3). Interpretation issues may arise about whether a specific duty falls within the listed proposals or timeframe.