Dragon Futures Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2005 |
| Date | 13 October 2005 |
| Court | Value Added Tax Tribunal |
Chancery Division.
Peter Smith J.
J Henderson (instructed by McGregors) for the taxpayer.
B Singh (instructed by HM Revenue & Customs) for the Crown.
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Bond House Systems LtdVAT [2003] BVC 2,319
Optigen LtdVAT [2003] BVC 2,518
Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd and Bond House Systems Ltd v C & E Commrs (Joined Cases C-354/03, C-355/03 and C-484/03) (Advocate General's opinion, 16 February 2005)
Value added tax - Input tax - Carousel fraud - Claim for input tax disallowed - Appeal on basis of facts found and alleging breach of disclosure rules - Facts appeal stayed pending outcome of reference to ECJ in similar cases - Taxpayer entitled to similar stay of disclosure appeal.
This was an application by the taxpayer for a stay of its appeal against a decision of the VAT tribunal pending a decision of the European Court of Justice.
The taxpayer dealt in mobile telephones. Customs rejected most of its input tax claims on suspicion of "carousel" fraud. The taxpayer's appeal to the VAT and Duties Tribunal was dismissed and the taxpayer appealed on the facts and made an application that some appeals should be allowed without a further hearing because of a serious breach alleged against Customs in respect of a tribunal direction on disclosure. The tribunal found that there had been a serious breach but declined to exercise its discretion to allow the appeals for non-compliance. The taxpayer appealed against that decision.
The taxpayer's appeal on the facts had been stayed pending the decision of the ECJ in carousel fraud cases which had been referred to it (Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Trading Co (UK) Ltd and Bond House Systems Ltd (Joined Cases C-354/03, C-355/03 and C-484/03). The taxpayer applied to the court for a similar stay of the appeal against the decision on disclosure.
Held, granting the application:
There might be wasted and unnecessary costs incurred if the present appeal went ahead. If the appeal succeeded but the ECJ decision went against the taxpayer, it would have been an appeal on a false premise. Conversely if the ECJ decision was in its favour, the appeal would achieve no purpose since the taxpayer would obtain a tax refund in any event. Those considerations applied to the factual appeal and to this appeal also. There was no advantage in the parties incurring costs on an appeal which might turn out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobilix Ltd ((in Administration)) v HM Revenue and Customs; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same; Calltel Telecom Ltd and Another v Same
...even awareness of any other, might well appear entirely legitimate; but the picture could change fundamentally when what the tribunal in Dragon Futures described as a “web of contracts” is examined. Having conducted that examination it is, in our view, perfectly obvious that trade of the ki......
-
Red 12 Trading Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs
... ... 12 Trading Limited Appellant and The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs Respondent [2009] ... , broadly speaking, as agent for HMRC: Elida Gibbs Ltd v Customs & Excise Comrs [1997] QB 499) , less any input tax incurred, which he will claim ... 40 In the tribunal case of Dragon Futures v HMRC [2006] UK VAT 19831 the VAT & Duties tribunal, ... ...
-
R (Just Fabulous (UK) Ltd) v HM Revenue and Customs
...extends to contra-trading. However, Tribunal decisions are in any event not binding upon me, and Mr Patchett-Joyce, who was Counsel in Dragon Futures, tells me that once again there was no express addressing of contra-trading, and that the reference to the need to look at other contracts, o......
-
Mobilx Ltd v HM Comissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
... ... ) Appellant and Her Majesty's Commissioners For Revenue And Customs Respondents ... Mr Philip ... 14 In Georgiou v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1996] STC 463 CA at 476, Evans LJ refers to excerpts from ... by asking itself the question first posed by another Tribunal in Dragon" Futures (decision dated 25 th October 2006) at [75]: \xE2\x80" ... ...