R v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte Kay and Company ; R v Same, ex parte Rayner and Keeler ; R v Same, ex parte Allied Domecq Plc ; R v Same, ex parte the Wardens and Commonality of the Mystery of Mercers of the City of London ; R v Same, ex parte Colaingrove Ltd ; R v Same, ex parte Greenlee Group Plc ; R v Same, ex parte National Provident Institution ; R v Same ex parte Association of Optometrists
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1996 |
| Date | 19 November 1996 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Keene
VAT - recovery of overpayment - no power to impose time limit
The Commissioners of Customs and Excise had no power to impose a three-year time limit on retrospective claims for refunds for overpayment of value-added tax.
Mr Justice Keene so held in the Queen's Bench Division in allowing the applications of Kay and Co, Rayner and Keeler, Allied Domecq plc, the Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Mercers of the City of London, Colaingrove Ltd, Greenlee Group plc, National Provident Institution and the Association of Optometrists for, inter alia, (i) judicial review by way of certiorari (a) to quash the policy of the commissioners, expressed in a parliamentary answer given by the Paymaster General on July 18, 1996, to adopt a three-year time limit on the retrospective claims for VAT refunds and (b) to quash the decisions of the Customs and Excise relating to each of the applicants to refuse or to defer repayment of money paid as VAT and (ii) declaratory relief.
The Bill of Rights 1688 provides in part: "Suspending power - That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parliament is illegal."
Section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 provides: "(1) Where a person has (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) paid an amount to the commissioners by way of VAT which was not VAT due to them, they shall be liable to repay the amount to him."
Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F J Chalke Ltd and Another v The Commisioners for HM Revenue and Customs
...of Taxes Act 1968 was the subject of successful judicial review proceedings: see R v Customs and Excise Commissioners, ex parte Kay & Co [1996] STC 1500. However, this was a problem of legality under domestic law: it had nothing to do with Community 216 In the run up to the announcement by ......
-
Marks & Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No 1, No 3 and Case C-62/00)
... ... 1998 (not yet reported) National & Provincial Building Society v United KingdomTAX ... EHRR 301 R v C & E Commrs, ex parte Kay & Co LtdVAT [1997] BVC 128 R v ... for Agricultural Produce, ex parte First City Trading Ltd (Case C-263/97) 29 September 1998 ... of the taxable amount and shall be the same for the supply of goods and for the supply of ... v Greece HRC (1994) 19 EHRR 293 the company had concluded a contract with the Greek Military ... ...
-
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v DFS Furniture Company Ltd (No 2)
...1996. 18 On 19 November 1996 a decision was handed down by Keene J in R v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte Kay & Co Ltd [1996] STC 1500, declaring that the Commissioners' policy of deferring refunds of overpaid VAT was unlawful. DFS and the Commissioners were both aware of the......
-
R (Cardiff City Council) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
...80 is not available to him quite apart from any period of limitation. In this context he cites R v C&E Commissioners, ex parte Kay & Co [1996] STC 1500 (Keene J), Marks and Spencer v C & E Commissioners [2000] STC 16 C.A.,R v C & E Commissioners, ex parte Building Societies Ombudsman Co Ltd......