In tax matters there are a long line of cases which hold that the statutes should be so construed as to avoid hardship or injustice and are to be liberally interpreted in favor of the taxpayer. General Petroleum Corp. of Cal. v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356, 158 A.L.R. 364; City of Phoenix v. Borden Co., 84 Ariz. 250, 326 P.2d 841; State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick Clay Products, Inc., 85 Ariz. 23, 330 P.2d 988; Corporation Commission v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States, 73 Ariz. 171, 239 P.2d 360; Arizona Tax Commission v. Dairy Consumers Co-op Assn., 70 Ariz. 7, 215 P.2d 235; Alvord v. State Tax Commission, 69 Ariz. 287, 213 P.2d 363; State v. Airesearch Mfg. Co., supra; and also giving due regard to the expression of legislative intent, Moore v. Smotkin, 79 Ariz. 77, 283 P.2d 1029, rehearing denied, 79 Ariz. 401, 291 P.2d 216; State Tax Commission v. Miami Copper Co., 74 Ariz. 234, 246 P.2d 871; Hill v. County of Gila, 56 Ariz. 317, 107 P.2d 377. Discussing a penalty clause in General Petroleum Corp. of Cal. v. Smith, supra, this Court said:

The Arizona Supreme Court has held that an amendment which in effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must be accepted as the legislative declaration of the meaning of the original act. City of Mesa v. Killingsworth, supra. In General Petroleum Corp. of Cal. v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356 (1945), the court said: "* * * The rule seems to be well established that the interpretation of a statute by the legislative department goes far to remove doubt as to the meaning of the law.

The object of the penalty is to secure compliance, not to generate additional revenue for the state. See North Slope Borough v. Sohio Petroleum Corp., 585 P.2d 534 (Alaska 1978); General Petroleum Corporation v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356 (1945); Tennessee Products Chemical Corp. v. Dickinson, 195 Tenn. 63, 256 S.W.2d 709 (1953). These purposes are not contravened here.

The court has the right and the duty, in arriving at the correct meaning of a prior statute, to consider subsequent legislation.Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida, 59 So.2d 788, 790 (Fla. 1952), quoting General Petroleum Corp. of Cal. v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356, 360 (1945). Likewise was the observation made in Amos v. Conkling, 99 Fla. 206, 126 So. 283, 288 (1930):

On the one hand, it has been held that "an amendment which in effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must be accepted as the legislative declaration of the meaning of the original act." Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, 169 Conn. 613, 363 A.2d 1038, 1043 (1975), quoting General Petroleum Corp. v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356, 360 (1945). The Arizona court went on to say that "[t]he rule seems to be well established that the interpretation of a statute by the legislative department goes far to remove the doubt as to the meaning of the law."

In similar situations courts have been held to have inherent power to waive statutory penalties. General Petroleum Corporation v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356, 360 (1945); Swartz v. Atkins, 204 Tenn. 23, 315 S.W.2d 393, 394 (1958); see Meyers v. Arcadia Realty Foundation, Inc., 367 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Ky.App. 1963). We do not agree, however, with the superior court's conclusion that interest should be waived.

We hold therefore that the 1961 amendment did not change the original meaning of G.S. 45-21.38; it merely made specific that which had theretofore been implicit. See Currie and Lieberman, Purchase Money Mortgages, Etc., 1960 Duke Law J. 1, 18; General Petroleum Co. v. Smith) 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356, 158 A.L.R. 364. The situation here is clouded by the dual positions occupied by Parker, who was not only the president and attorney of defendant, the corporate vendor, but also the guardian of Schimmeck, whose money he loaned to plaintiffs to buy land from his corporation.

It is a fundamental rule that statutes are to be construed together and where different statutes bearing upon the same subject matter exist they must be construed so as to give effect to all. Arizona Corp. Comm'n v. Catalina Foothills Estates, 78 Ariz. 245, 278 P.2d 427; General Petroleum Corp. of Calif. v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356, 158 A.L.R. 364. Likewise, it is well settled that where a special provision of a statute deals with the same subject as a general statute, the special provision prevails. Moeur v. Chiricahua Ranches Co., 48 Ariz. 226, 61 P.2d 163; State v. Lumberman's Indemnity Exchange, 24 Ariz. 306, 209 P. 294.

An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act. General Petroleum Corporation of California v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356, 158 A.L.R. 364. Respondents raised as a defense to this action that the petition was defective for failure to join all fourteen counties of the State of Arizona as indispensable parties under Rule 19, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. On December 10th, prior to any hearings in this matter, we ordered additional parties joined as respondents, being the counties within which the petitioning municipalities existed; namely, Maricopa, Pima and Navajo.

The plaintiff does not question the reasonableness of the Motor Vehicle Division's regulation, Order 57. What the plaintiff-appellee does contend is that the application of Order 57 under the circumstances works an unreasonable hardship. This is not a case such as discussed in General Petroleum Corp. v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 239, 157 P.2d 356, 158 A.L.R. 364, where there is an excusable delay in payment, and the court may exercise its equitable power to abate the tax penalty under meritorious conditions. No discretion or weighing of circumstances is involved.