Commissioners of Customs and Excise v YOUNG
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 36 |
| Date | 09 March 1993 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
FIRST DIVISION
RevenueValue added taxPracticeAppealRespondent in appeal failing to comply with direction to lodge statement of case and list of documents after extension of time to do so grantedWhether Value Added Tax Tribunal erred in exercise of discretion in allowing appeal on basis of that failureValue Added Tax Tribunal Rules 1986 (S.I. 1986 No. 590) r. 191
A taxpayer appealed to the Value Added Tax Tribunal against the refusal of the Commissioners of H.M. Customs and Excise of his claim for a refund of V.A.T. The commissioners made an application for an extension of time to lodge their statement of case and list of documents which was granted, the tribunal issuing a direction that the commissioners lodge the relevant material by 26th June 1992. The commissioners, however, did not lodge the material until 8th July 1992. The person dealing with the case had been employed in the commissioners' London office and had not received the papers until 23rd June 1992. She had completed the statement of case on 26th June 1992 but had put it in the London internal mail distribution box instead of the Edinburgh one, the mistake not being discovered until the following week. She subsequently served a fresh statement of case at the Edinburgh office of the V.A.T. tribunal. No explanation was provided as to why she had not been instructed until only a few days before the expiry date. The tribunal subsequently allowed the taxpayer's appeal in the exercise of their discretion under r. 19 (4) of the Value Added Tax Tribunal Rules 1986 on the basis of non-compliance with the earlier direction. The commissioners appealed to the Court of Session on the basis that (a) they had not wilfully failed to comply with the direction, and in the circumstances, the tribunal had exercised its discretion unreasonably; and (b) the taxpayer had suffered no prejudice as a result of the failure.
Held (aff. judgment of the V.A.T. Tribunal) (1) that the appeal court would not interfere with the tribunal's decision unless the tribunal had exercised its discretion unreasonably or unjustly, the tests of unreasonableness or injustice being applied to the facts and circumstances which were before the tribunal at the time their discretion was exercised; (2) that the commissioners could have taken steps, such as a facsimile transmission of the relevant material to the Edinburgh tribunal office, to ensure that the papers would arrive timeously; and (3) that, as the purpose of the direction had been to avoid further delay, the tribunal had been entitled to expect the commissioners to comply strictly with it and, in the absence of any mitigating circumstances, they had been entitled to exercise their discretion to allow the appeal; and appeal refused.
Colin Young appealed to the Value Added Tax Tribunal sitting at Edinburgh against the refusal by the Commissioners of H.M. Customs and Excise of his claim for a refund of value added tax. The commissioners were granted an extension of time to lodge their statement of case and list of documents by the tribunal by means of a direction under r. 19 (1) of the Value Added Tax Tribunal Rules 1986. In terms
of that direction the relevant papers had to be submitted to the tribunal by 26th June 1992. The commissioners failed to comply with this direction. The tribunal thereafter exercised their discretion under r. 19 (4) to allow the appeal. The relevant facts and circumstances appear sufficiently from the opinion of the courtThe commissioners thereafter appealed to the Court of Session.
The cause called before the First Division, comprising the Lord President (Hope), Lord Allanbridge and Lord Cullen for a hearing.
At advising, on 9th March 1993, the opinion of the court was delivered by the Lord President (Hope).
Opinion of the CourtThis is an appeal under sec. 13 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seabrook and Smith Ltd ((in Administration)) v The Commissioners for Customs and Excise
...authorities to which I have been referred, the closest in terms of subject matter is Customs and Excise Comrs v Young [1993] STC 394, 1993 SC 339, a decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session sitting as the Court of Exchequer in Scotland. That was an appeal from a final, though dis......