Don Pasquale (A Firm) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT,SIR ROUALEYN CUMMING-BRUCE |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1990 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1990] EWCA Civ J0523-1 |
| Docket Number | 90/0435 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 13 June 1990 |
[1990] EWCA Civ J0523-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE ROCH)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Donaldson)
Lord Justice Leggatt
Sir Roualeyn Cumming-Bruce
90/0435
MR. GUY SANKEY (instructed by The Solicitor, H. M. Customs & Excise) appeared for the Applicant.
The appeal by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against a decision of Mr. Justice Roch on appeal from the V.A.T. Tribunal has been set down for hearing, but has been mentioned to us today because the dispute as between the V.A.T. taxpayer and the Commissioners has been settled, and it follows from that that there is no longer any issue as between the parties to the appeal.
As Mr. Sankey readily admits, and as is further admitted in a very helpful skeleton argument signed by Mr. Pleming of counsel, the position is that, on House of Lords authority, where there is no live issue between parties to a private law action, it is not for the courts to hear appeals merely because the decision under appeal has widespread ramifications in terms of determining private rights.
The problem which has arisen in this case can, I think, be summarised as follows. There are statutory provisions whereby, if a V.A.T. taxpayer wishes to appeal against an assessment, he has first to deposit the money with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise thereby, incidentally, making them secured creditors. There is an exception covering the situation when the taxpayer can show that hardship would be caused to him if that was required, and a fortiori if he simply has not got the money, because that would deny him any appeal. On the view of the law taken by Roch J., in this exceptional case the Tribunal could either waive the requirement for a deposit of the full amount of the assessment or it could refuse to do so. What it has no power to do is to order the deposit of part of the amount assessed.
In this case a number of assessments were raised in relation to differing consecutive periods of accountability and they were apparently issued in a combined form. The taxpayer was able to satisfy the Tribunal that he could not possibly deposit all the money, although he could deposit a proportion. If the various assessments were separate, then, of course, the Tribunal could have ordered him to deposit such as he could and allocated it to particular assessments. But, since the assessments were taken as being, in effect, one assessment on the view of the learned judge, it was an all or nothing situation. Either the Tribunal said, "We make no special order", in which case the appeal could not be entertained, or they would be bound to say, "You do not have to deposit anything".
That is the position which is troubling the Commissioners not a little. It is submitted that that decision is wrong and contrary to various dicta and possibly a decision of the Court of Appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Le Rififi Ltd
...by Tarlo Lyons) for the company. The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Don Pasquale (a firm) v C & E Commrs VAT(1990) 5 BVC 76 Grange (SJ) Ltd v C & E Commrs WLRVAT[1979] 1 WLR 239(1978) 1 BVC 210 International Language Centres Ltd v C & E Commrs VAT(1983) 1 BVC 545 Value ad......
-
Bjellica (t/a Eddy's Domestic Appliances) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
...following cases were referred to in the judgment: C & E Commrs v Le Rififi Ltd VAT[1995] BVC 55 Don Pasquale (a firm) v C & E Commrs VAT(1990) 5 BVC 76 Grange (SJ) Ltd v C & E Commrs VAT(1978) 1 BVC 210 Value added tax - Registration - Taxpayer failed to register - Tax assessed in respect o......
-
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v The Post Office
...268; [1991] BVC 789. C & E Commrs v Le Rififi Ltd TAXTAX[1993] BTC 5226; [1995] BTC 5039 (CA). Don Pasquale (a firm) v C & E Commrs TAX[1990] BTC 5087. House (tla P & J Autos) v C & E Commrs TAX[1994] BTC 5048. Lord Advocate v Johnson TAX[1985] BTC 5021. Parekh & Anor v C & E Commrs TAX[198......
-
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Le Rififi Ltd
...referred to in the judgments Ashville Investments Ltd v Elmer Contractors LtdELR[1989] QB 488 Don Pasquale (a firm) v C & E Commrs VAT(1990) 5 BVC 76 Grange (SJ) Ltd v C & E Commrs VAT(1978) 1 BVC 210 Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd v C & E Commrs VAT(1986) 2 BVC 200,240 Hack v London ......