TC03675: Romasave (Property Services) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] UKFTT 549 (TC) |
| Date | 03 June 2014 |
| Court | First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2014] UKFTT 549 (TC)
Judge Christopher Staker
Mr Geraint Jones QC, counsel, instructed by Rainer Hughes, appeared for the Appellant
Ms Rita Paveley, Senior Officer, appeared for the Respondents
Value added tax - Application for permission to appeal out of time - Value Added Tax Act 1994 ("VATA 1994"), Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 86G subsec-or-para 1 section 83G subsec-or-para 6s. 83G(1) and (6) - Application allowed in part.
[1]The Appellant company applies for permission to appeal out of time, to the extent that such permission is required, against various assessments to VAT and misdeclaration penalties.
[2]A notice of appeal was submitted to the Tribunal by the Appellant on 22 February 2012. Supplemental grounds of appeal were subsequently submitted by the Appellant's representatives in respect of additional decisions. At the hearing, it was confirmed on behalf of the Appellant that the final list of assessments and misdeclaration penalties against which the Appellant seeks to appeal is as indicated in the table below. The significance of the column in the table entitled "Address to which sent" will become apparent later.
Decision |
VAT period |
Amount |
Date of decision |
Address to which sent |
Misdeclaration penalty ("Decision 1") |
06/08 |
£1,365 |
21.11.08 |
Griffins |
VAT assessment ("Decision 2") |
09/08 |
£2,890.70 |
03.12.08 |
Ganrids |
VAT assessment ("Decision 3") |
12/08 |
£5,666.66 |
13.03.09 |
Ganrids |
VAT assessment ("Decision 4") |
03/06, 06/06, 09/06, 12/06, 03/07, 06/07, 09/07, 12/07, 03/08, 06/08 |
£109,325.34 |
15.04.09 |
Ganrids |
Misdeclaration penalty ("Decision 5") |
06/08 |
£3,338 |
18.05.09 |
Griffins |
Misdeclaration penalty ("Decision 6") |
03/06, 06/06, 09/06, 12/06, 03/07, 06/07, 09/07, 12/07, 03/08 |
£12,941 |
18.05.09 |
Griffins |
VAT assessment ("Decision 7") |
03/09 |
£1,021.74 |
21.08.09 |
Griffin |
VAT assessment ("Decision 8") |
09/09 |
£1,099.57 |
16.03.10 |
Roxburghe |
VAT assessment ("Decision 9") |
06/10, 12/10, 03/11 |
£53,753.39 |
17.10.11 |
Griffin |
[3]The total amount in dispute in the proposed appeal is thus in the region of £200,000.
[4]An application to make a late appeal covering much the same ground was determined by the Tribunal in April 2013: Romasave Property Services LtdTAX[2013] TC 02675 (the "April 2013 decision"). In July 2013, the whole of that decision was set aside by the Tribunal on the Appellant's application, on the ground that the Appellant had not received notice of the hearing on that occasion and had not been represented.
[5]The Appellant disputes that there was valid service of Decisions 2, 3, 4 and 8 on the ground that they were incorrectly addressed, and argues that because of this, the time limit for appealing against those decisions has not yet begun to run. The Appellant accepts that the misdeclaration penalties in Decisions 5 and 6 were correctly addressed to the Appellant, but contends that they were not validly served because the assessment in Decision 4 which found that there had been a misdeclaration was not validly served. The Appellant accepts that Decisions 1, 7 and 9 were validly served on the Appellant, and that permission to appeal out of time is required in respect of those decisions.
[6]The evidence before the Tribunal consisted of material in a joint documents bundle, and a witness statement of Mr Avtar Singh Mann, the sole director of the Appellant company, to which there are various exhibits.
[7]The principal documents in the joint documents bundle indicate the following.
[8]On 11 September 2008, following a VAT visit to the Appellant, HMRC issued a letter requesting certain further information from the Appellant in relation to VAT period 06/08. That letter also disallowed 10 items of claimed input tax dated between March and September 2008 and totalling £9,103.12. It stated that in consequence the repayment to the Appellant for VAT period 06/08 would be reduced. The letter added that as that repayment had already been made, an assessment would be raised in the immediate future. This letter was addressed to the Appellant at the address which is accepted by the Appellant to be its usual place of business, and is referred to below as the "Griffins" address.
[9]In a letter to the Appellant dated 24 October 2008 (to the "Griffins" address), HMRC stated that the remaining repayment for VAT period 06/08 was placed on hold pending a response by the Appellant to the 11 September 2008 HMRC letter. The letter stated that if a response was not received within 14 days, HMRC would proceed without further notice to issue an assessment based on the input tax that had been allowed by HMRC for periods 03/07 to 03/08.
[10]On 21 November 2008, HMRC advised the Appellant (at the "Griffins" address) that in view of the assessments issued, a misdeclaration penalty was being issued for period 06/08 (Decision 1).
[11]By a letter dated 3 December 2008, HMRC advised the Appellant that due to the failure to respond to the HMRC letter of 24 October 2008, the repayment due for period 09/08 had been reduced to nil (Decision 2). In this letter, there was an error in the Appellant's address, in that "Griffins Wood House" had been written "Ganrids Wood House". This erroneous version of the address is referred to below as the "Ganrids" address.
[12]In January 2009, the Appellant submitted a paper VAT return for period 12/08. That paper return had been issued by HMRC, addressed to the Appellant at the Ganrids address. On the paper return, in handwriting, the word "Ganrids" has been crossed out, and corrected to "Griffins".
[13]By a letter dated 6 March 2009 (to the "Griffins" address), HMRC advised the Appellant that unless the Appellant provided within 14 days the information requested in the 11 September 2008 HMRC letter, HMRC would raise an assessment disallowing all input tax reclaimed by the Appellant on the basis that no supporting evidence had been produced.
[14]By a letter dated 13 March 2009 (to the "Ganrids" address), HMRC advised the Appellant that due to the failure to submit evidence, the reclaimed input tax for VAT period 12/08 had been reduced to nil, with the result that the return was no longer a repayment return but rather a payment was now due to HMRC (Decision 3).
[15]On 15 April 2009, HMRC issued an assessment to the Appellant (at the "Ganrids" address) in a sum of some £100,000 for periods 03/06 to 06/08 (Decision 4).
[16]In April 2009, the Appellant submitted a paper VAT return for period 03/09. That paper return had been issued by HMRC, addressed to the Appellant at the Ganrids address.
[17]On 18 May 2009, HMRC issued two assessments to the Appellant (to the "Griffins" address) of misdeclaration penalty for periods 03/06 to 06/08, and an increased assessment of misdeclaration penalty for period 06/08 (Decisions 5 and 6).
[18]By a letter dated 21 August 2009 (to the "Griffins" address), HMRC advised the Appellant that reclaimed input tax for period 03/09 had been disallowed, with the result that the return was no longer a repayment return but rather a payment was now due to HMRC (Decision 7).
[19]On 21 September 2009, the firm of solicitors Anami Law (whose address is also the "Griffins" address) faxed to HMRC a letter of authority signed by Mr Mann, authorising HMRC to deal with a solicitor at Anami Law "in relation to the immediate payment in relation to" the Appellant company's VAT registration number.
[20]By a letter dated 22 September 2009, addressed to the Appellant's representatives Anami Law, HMRC provided a ledger breakdown of the then balance of some £130,000. The letter added that if the Appellant addressed issues that had been raised in correspondence, HMRC would review the assessments in the light of the information provided.
[21]By a letter dated 1 October 2009, Anami Law replied, stating that the various assessments had never been received by Mr Mann or the Appellant company, and that various correspondence had not been received by Anami Law. The letter stated that the Appellant intended to address the issues, but that they were "slightly in the dark as to the assessments raised, and what the issues were". The letter concluded with a request that all relevant documents be sent to Anami Law. The letter requested that the assessments against Mr Mann be withdrawn, and stated that failing this a Tribunal appeal would be commenced "once I have received the necessary documentation".
[22]HMRC responded in a letter dated 2 October 2009, stating that "I did personally post the copies of the earlier correspondence to your address - I enclose them again".
[23]By a letter dated 15 October 2009, Anami Law stated that HMRC correspondence from 11 September 2008 to 21 August 2009 had been incorrectly sent to the "Griffins" address, when it should have been sent to the registered office of the Appellant at King & King Accountants, Roxburghe House, London (the "Roxburghe" address). The letter requested that the assessments against the Appellant company and Mr Mann be withdrawn, and stated that failing this a Tribunal appeal would be commenced.
[24]A letter dated 9 November 2009 from HMRC to King & King Accountants at the Roxburghe address stated that that letter was enclosing a copy of a letter from Anami Law and stated that "I am enclosing the relevant assessment documents and details of the information we require".
[25]In another letter dated 9 November 2009 to Anami Law, HMRC stated that there had been "numerous letters from you in this time" where no mention of an incorrect address was raised.
[26]On 7 December 2009, HMRC wrote again to King & King at the Roxburghe address, stating that there had been no response from King & King, and that if no response was provided by 21 December 2009, HMRC debt management would be asked to chase the debt.
[27]On 23 December 2009, HMRC wrote again to King & King stating that in the absence of a response, the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...decision that had been set aside. The Upper Tribunal has allowed the taxpayer's appeal against decisions of the FTT ([2013] TC 02675; [2014] TC 03675) to refuse its application to make late appeals against several assessments. In the circumstances of the case, copies of the assessments sent......