Ravikanth Borra (also known as Ravi Gupta) v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mullen |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1195 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: BR-2019-000780 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
In the Matter of Ravikanth Gupta (also known as Ravikanth Borra)
And in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986
[2022] EWHC 1195 (Ch)
ICC JUDGE Mullen
Case No: BR-2019-000780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
Mr Andrew Vinson (instructed by Farleys Solicitors LLP) for the Applicant
Mr Raj Arumugam (instructed by The Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs) for the First Respondent
Mr Reuben Comiskey (instructed by Edwin Coe LLP) for the Second Respondent
Hearing dates: 1 st to 3 rd March 2022
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
ICC JUDGE Mullen
Introduction
The applications that I have to consider concern the identity of the bankrupt. On 26 th June 2019 the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) petitioned for the bankruptcy of Ravikanth Gupta, described as a financier, of 480 Upper Richmond Road, London SW15 5JG. The debt set out in the petition was £145,492.93 made up of self-assessed taxes, interest, surcharges and penalties.
The petition debt, or at least a substantial portion of it, arose out of an investigation carried out by HMRC's Counter Avoidance Unit in 2013. That investigation concluded that Ravikanth Gupta had participated in a loan scheme operated by a company called Raingold (UK) Limited (“Raingold”). HMRC concluded that the loans made under this scheme to Ravikanth Gupta were in fact disguised remuneration and taxable as income. Assessment notices were issued on 30 th October 2013 for the tax years ending 5 th April 2009 and 2010 in the sums of £49,726.00 and £27,225.00 respectively for unpaid self-assessment tax and National Insurance contributions. Those sums formed the first two principal sums particularised in the petition. The notices included payment instructions, noting that cheques should include a reference number, which ended “75859”. This reference begins with the letters UTR, which stands for Unique Taxpayer Reference.
The notices were not, however, sent to Ravikanth Gupta but to “Mr R Borra” at 106 Woking Close, London SW15 5LB. That is the name that HMRC, from its own records, understood to be used by “Ravikanth Gupta” at the time. Further sums were claimed in respect of each tax year to 2017 and assessment notices were issued in October 2018, in the sum of £6,000 for each of the tax years ending 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017. An assessment issued in March 2018 for the tax year ending 2014 is for £30,000, although the petition is limited to £6,000 for that year. All of these later notices were issued to “Mr R Gupta” at 480 Upper Richmond Road. These notices included the same Unique Taxpayer Reference as the 2013 notices but also included the taxpayer's National Insurance number, which ends “360A”.
The petition was amended on 22 nd July 2019 to include the name “Ravikanth Borra” as an alias of the debtor. The amended petition was served pursuant to an order, dated 22 nd August 2019, for substituted service by first class post addressed to “Ravikanth Gupta (also known as Borra)” at 480 Upper Richmond Road. Service was effective on 5 th September 2019. There was no response to the petition and a bankruptcy order was made on 2 nd October 2019. Ms Louise Brittain was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy by the Secretary of State on 12 th December 2019.
On 28 th October 2019, an application was made in the name of Ravikanth Gupta, giving as his address 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX That address is in fact an address of British Monomarks Limited (“British Monomarks”), which operates a post-restante and redirection service. I will refer to this address, as the parties have done, as “the Monomarks Address”. The application asked the court to set aside the bankruptcy order on the grounds that the applicant had been unaware of the hearing and had received no documents in connection with the proceedings. In his witness statement in support, dated 18 th December 2019, the applicant said that he had no connection to 480 Upper Richmond Road and had been living in India since 2012. He claimed that he was made redundant in 2012 and this, together with “insane working hours”, had led him to suffer from depression, and he had suffered a relapse of this as a result of the bankruptcy proceedings. He said that he wanted time to gather information from HMRC.
On 26 th February 2020 a witness statement was filed at court in the name of Ravi Gupta of 480 Upper Richmond Road. It is not related to any particular application but complains that he has been:
“added to the insolvency register based on the judgement given on 2 ND OCT 2019 for RAVIKANTH GUPTA”.
It goes on:
“I have been appealing to every avenue possible to update of the fact that RAVI GUPTA is different to RAVIKANTH GUPTA. I'm different person and have never been called with any other name esp with RAVIKANTH GUPTA.
…
RAVIKANTH GUPTA is different person and he is responding to the court and is presenting his arguments and defense.”
On 27 th February 2020 a document was filed at court in the name of Ravikanth Borra of 257 Burges Road, London E6 2EU. It is described as an affidavit but it is not sworn, instead bearing a statement of truth. Again, it is not associated with an application but states:
“I have never received any letters from HMRC related to any pending tax dues, and have never had any pending tax issues with HMRC. But unfortunately my name is added to the insolvency register and this judgement reference which is on RAVIKANTH GUPTA
I have never been served the bankruptcy notice or any declaration or any court notice to my address till date.
I notice from the court files that RAVIKANTH GUPTA the litigant in the case file is responding the court and has requested for a hearing which is scheduled on 30 Mar 2020.
Since I have nothing to do with this case and has never been served any notice till date, I request my name to be removed from insolvency register”.
On 8 th May 2020 an application to annul the bankruptcy under section 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the 1986 Act”) was made in the name of Ravikanth Gupta, whose address was again given as the Monomarks Address. The application notice said:
“there is a serious dispute on facts in relation to the Respondent's calculation of the assessment given that the Applicant has lived outside of the UK, in India, since 2012”.
The witness statement in support of the same date raised a number of questions about the calculation of the assessed sums but it did not deny that the applicant was the intended target of the petition.
Shortly thereafter, on 16 th May 2020, another application to annul under section 282(1)(a) was made, this time by Ravikanth Borra, who gave his address as 3 Stamford Road, London E6 1LP. The statement in support of the same date:
“Im still believe Im being dragged into affairs of another person. Im unclear who is the person made bankrupt. I have not received any tax claim letters from HMRC nor any court documents.”
A further application was made under the same name and address on 8 th July 2020. It was described as an amended application and sought the removal of the name “Ravikanth Borra” from the bankruptcy order. The accompanying statement in support, dated 6 th July 2020, said:
“In a case where we already have issues regarding the handling of ID, I can't compromise on my ID documents. I did state myself respectfully to the court earlier and reiterate here again that I have been victim to ID fraud before and I have got hit badly
…
I don't see a reason why me a third party is being dragged into some claim file on another person. My sincere request is to remove my name from the judgement and my application should be handled without combining with other issues on the case.”
It will be apparent therefore that there were two applications in the name of Ravikanth Gupta and two in the name of Ravikanth Borra. Those in the name of Ravikanth Gupta accept that he is the intended target of the petition but say that he was not served and that the tax has been incorrectly calculated. Those in the name of Ravikanth Borra similarly say that he did not receive the relevant documents and that HMRC have mistaken him for the bankrupt. He was not the intended target and he is not therefore subject to the order. The position of the respondents is that the person applying to the court in the name of Ravikanth Borra is the bankrupt and the name Ravikanth Gupta is one of the aliases by which he goes. They contend that the person calling himself Ravikanth Gupta is simply a front to create the impression that there is a doubt as to the bankrupt's identity.
I shall for convenience in this judgment refer to the supposed authors of those applications as Mr Borra and Mr Gupta as these are the names they have used for themselves. In fact, Mr Borra changed his name by deed poll on 31 st October 2011 from Ravikanth Borra to Ravi Gupta, on his evidence because he had been the victim of fraud under his original name. He continued to use his original and adopted names thereafter and has not formally reverted to the surname Borra.
At the trial, I heard only Mr Borra's applications. The background to that was that the bankrupt was summoned to attend a public examination on a number of occasions and the trustee had obtained an order for the suspension of his discharge as a result of his failure to co-operate with her. On 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial