Kohanzad v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1994 |
| Date | 26 July 1994 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List).
Schiemann J.
The taxpayer appeared in person.
Andrew McNab (instructed by the Solicitor for Customs and Excise) for the Crown.
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Montalbano VAT(LON/85/591) No. 2113; (1986) 2 BVC 208,101
Morgan (t/a Wishmore Morgan Investments) VAT(LON/86/165) No. 2150; (1986) 2 BVC 208,108
C & E Commrs v Peachtree Enterprises Ltd VAT[1994] BVC 209
Value added tax - Input tax - No input tax allowed - Taxpayer did not produce invoices - Whether Customs wrongly refused to exercise their discretion to allow input tax without invoices - Value Added Tax (General) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985/886), reg. 62(1).
This was an appeal by the taxpayer against a decision of the VAT tribunal (LON/91/978) No. 7215; [1992] BVC 1425 upholding the refusal by Customs to exercise the discretion implicit in reg. 62(1) of the Value Added Tax (General) Regulations 1985 to allow input tax without supporting invoices.
In 1989 the taxpayer had been convicted of the evasion of duty chargeable on imported goods, namely krugerrands. He pleaded guilty, but claimed that he was in fact not guilty but had admitted the offence in order that the identity of his family in Iran, who might have been placed in danger, would not be disclosed.
As a result of investigations made after his arrest the taxpayer was assessed for VAT on sales of gold during the period between April 1988 and January 1989. The taxpayer claimed input tax in relation to supplies made to him during that period but produced no invoices in support of his claim. He said that his papers, including the relevant invoices, had been seized by Customs during the investigation but he had no receipts and could not identify the officers concerned. Customs could find no record of the seizure.
Customs conceded that they had a discretion to allow input tax without invoices but refused, in the circumstances, to do so. They did not accept that the taxpayer's papers had been seized and concluded that input tax had not been paid.
Held, dismissing the taxpayer's appeal:
The VAT tribunal had a supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise by Customs of their discretion. It was for the tribunal to decide whether Customs had exercised the discretion in a proper manner on the material available when the decision was made. Having heard evidence on behalf of the taxpayer which they did not accept, the tribunal were entitled, on the material available, to conclude that documents had not been seized by Customs and that input tax had not been paid.
Schiemann J: This is an appeal against a decision of the London VAT tribunal given on 4 March 1992. The tribunal dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against Customs' assessment dated 10 November 1989, in the sum of £60,994.93 for the accounting periods April 1988, July 1988, October 1988 and January 1989. Those assessments had been issued in addition to four centrally issued assessments for a significantly lesser sum. The appeal has been conducted by Mr Kohanzad in person, very ably helped by his son.
The substance of this appeal is the lawfulness of Customs' refusal to deduct input tax on those assessments, in the absence of tax invoices, or independent evidence, showing that VAT was charged by or paid to a registered or registrable supplier.
It is important that the jurisdiction of this court and of the tribunal be appreciated, and before I turn to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G B Housley Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
...discretion to allow a credit for input tax notwithstanding that the taxable person does not hold a valid tax invoice: see Kohanzad v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1994] STC 967 at 969 per Schiemann J, followed in Best Buys Supplies Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2012] STC 885 at......
-
Tower Bridge GP Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 07026
...credit for input tax notwithstanding that the taxable person does not have a valid VAT invoice (Kohanzad v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1994] STC 967 at 969 per Schiemann, J.). 245. The Upper Tribunal has recently confirmed that in invalid invoice cases the Tribunal should focus on the r......
-
Scandico Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
...rejected alternative evidence supporting a claim that input tax was incurred was discussed in Kohanzad v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1994] STC 967 (‘Kohanzad’). In that case the Commissioners had conceded before the tribunal that they had a discretion to accept a claim for input tax c......
-
CGI Group (Europe) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs
...There seems little doubt that section 83 does confer a supervisory review jurisdiction in some cases: (i) in Kohanzad v C & E CommrsVAT[1995] BVC 3 Scheimann J said that in relation to what is now Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 83 subsec-or-para 1section 83(1)(c) when considering a case w......