Synectiv Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, V 19698
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Dr John Avery Jones CBE |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 2006 |
| Respondent | Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | Synectiv Limited |
| Reference | V 19698 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
19698
PRACTICE – proposed amendment to Statement of Case following the ECJ judgment in Bond House – whether amendment allowed – yes
SYNECTIV LIMITED Appellant
- and -
Tribunal: DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)
Sitting in public in London on 18 May 2006
Michael Patchett-Joyce, counsel, instructed by Pannone, for the Appellant
Rupert Anderson QC and Alan Bates, counsel, instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006
DECISION
-
This is an application by Customs to amend their Statement of Case from one based on the principles of the Bond House cases as decided by the Tribunal to the principles as decided by the European Court of Justice. Mr Patchett-Joyce appeared for the Appellant and Mr Rupert Anderson QC and Mr Alan Bates for Customs. The parties agreed that the application be heard in public.
-
Customs made two decisions, the first on 8 April 2003 refusing repayment of input tax, of £492,303.40 for periods 07/01 to 09/01, and secondly, an assessment made on 9 May 2003 for period 09/01 for £66,850 on the ground that certain transactions did not amount to supplies in the course of a business, with the result that it incurred no input tax that it could properly claim. The appeal was made on 30 December 2003. I should mention that the reason for the time that has elapsed since then is that criminal proceedings were pending until 24 June 2005 when Crane J stayed the proceedings.
-
I had the benefit of Customs’ draft revised Statement of Case (32 pages), Mr Patchett-Joyce’s outline submissions (30 pages), Customs’ skeleton argument for a directions hearing on 31 March 2006 (which was adjourned to allow the Appellant time to consider the draft revised Statement of Case) (8 pages), Customs’ further skeleton argument for this hearing (8 pages), and Mr Patchett-Joyce’s further submissions for this hearing (9 pages).
-
Mr Patchett-Joyce contends that the appeal should be allowed on account of Customs’ failure to comply with directions of the Tribunal, and secondly that Customs have no reasonable chance of success for the case in the draft amended Statement of Case.
-
On the first of these, Mr Patchett-Joyce identified the following failures (I have excluded those where Customs failed to meet a time limit but applied for an extension of time before the previous time limit expired):
-
Customs having applied for an extension of time to serve its Statement of Case and List of Documents until 14 October 2005. The Appellant having on 13 October 2005 applied for a Direction that the appeal should be allowed if Customs did not serve them by 21 October 2005, Customs failed to comply with the 14 October 2005 deadline for which they had asked. However, on 19 October 2005 Customs applied for a stand-over until after the ECJ judgment in Bond House.
-
The Tribunal directed Customs to serve a draft revised Statement of Case and List of Documents by Friday 24 March 2006 and a skeleton argument by 29 March 2006. These were not served until Tuesday 28 March 2006.
-
-
Mr Anderson apologises for the second of these and points out...
To continue reading
Request your trial