Metal Treatments (Birmingham) Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18614 (27 May 2004)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Metal Treatments (Birmingham) Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18614 (27 May 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18614.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18614

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Metal Treatments (Birmingham) Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18614 (27 May 2004)

    VAT — input tax — refusal of voluntary disclosure by Customs — whether claims to input tax allegedly made orally by telephone made timeously — no evidence of any claim ever being made — appeal dismissed

    MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

    METAL TREATMENTS (BIRMINGHAM) LIMITED Appellant

    - and -

    THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

    Tribunal: MrJ D Demack (Chairman)

    Sitting in public in Manchester on 13 April 2004

    Mr E Saunders, VAT consultant, for the Appellant

    Mr J Puzey, of counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

    © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


     

    DECISION
  1. This is an appeal by Metal Treatments (Birmingham) Ltd. ('Metal Treatments') against a decision of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise by letter of 1 October 2003 refusing a voluntary disclosure of input tax underclaimed of £1,436,149.29 in six consecutive financial years ending on 31 March 1997.

  2. Metal Treatments maintains that its claim was originally made orally by telephone by one Brian Chandler, its accounts officer, on a date unknown but before 30 April 1997. (It is common ground that if the claim was not made by that date it is statute barred under the 'capping' provisions). The Commissioners can find no record of any such claim, and put the company to proof that it was in fact made before the date in question.

  3. Metal Treatments full reasons for appealing, as included in its Notice of Appeal of 13 October 2003 are as follows:

  4. In opening Metal Treatments' case, Mr Saunders, its representative, concentrated almost entirely on deficiencies he perceived in Customs practice in dealing with taxpayers at the Birmingham Broadway enquiry centre, at which office he was at the time a trainee Customs officer dealing with telephone enquiries. I pointed out to him that, even if the deficiencies in question existed, it was still for Metal Treatments to prove on the balance of probabilities that the telephone call allegedly made by Brian Chandler had in fact been made: that in it he had claimed entitlement by Metal Treatments to recover input tax; that it was not a mere enquiry; and that it had been made no later then 30 April 1997.

  5. As the tribunal clerk had prepared a list of all those who were to be called as witnesses in the case, and none appeared to be being called by Metal Treatments, I enquired of Mr Saunders whether Mr Chandler was to be called. He explained that Mr Chandler's whereabouts were unknown, and he had no means of contacting him. I then asked whether the company had any documentary evidence contemporaneous with the events in 1997 to support its claims. To my question Mr Saunders answered that it probably had, but as all its documents for the period had been stored in boxes at its premises, he was unable with certainty to say and had none available on which to rely. He then applied for the hearing to be adjourned both to give him the opportunity to search the various storage boxes and to attempt to contact Mr Chandler, adding that this was the first occasion he had represented an appellant in the tribunal at a contested hearing. (Mr Puzey, counsel for the Commissioners, challenged Mr Saunders' claim in that behalf saying that he himself had dealt with at least one contested case in the tribunal where the appellant was represented by Mr Saunders).

  6. I invited Mr Saunders to indicate in general terms what evidence he proposed to adduce in support of Metal Treatments' claim in the absence of evidence from Mr Chandler and any contemporaneous documentary records of the company. He said that he had none to adduce . In those circumstances I had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.

    7. DAVID DEMACK
    CHAIRMAN
    RELEASE DATE:

    MAN/03/0750

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18614.html