TSL Contractors Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 05545
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Anne SCOTT |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKFTT 0820 (TC) |
| Respondent | The Commissioners For Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | TSL Contractors Ltd |
| Reference | TC 05545 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2016] UKFTT 0820 (TC)
TC05545
Appeal number: TC/2015/01877
AGGREGATES LEVY - Section 17 Finance Act 2001 – personal bar- not
competent against the Crown - legitimate expectation – no jurisdiction -
whether extraction from “site” of building –in large part not - line of
highway – no – best judgement assessment – yes – no credible evidence to
displace – appeal dismissed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
TSL CONTRACTORS LTD Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE ANNE SCOTT
DAVID MOORE
Sitting in public at George House, 126 George Street, Edinburgh on Monday 24
and Tuesday 25 October 2016
Mr Knight, for the Appellant
Ms Roxburgh, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue
and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2016
2
DECISION
Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a review decision of the respondents (“HMRC”) dated 5 15 January 2015 which reduced an assessment of aggregates levy (“the assessment”)
issued to the appellant on 18 August 2014 to £113,816 from £124,116. The
assessment covered the tax periods 07/10 to 04/14 but the disputed decision limited
the period to tax periods 10/10 to 04/14.
The issues in relation to the assessment 10
HMRC
2. HMRC invited the Tribunal to uphold the disputed decision on the grounds that
(1) The appellant had subjected aggregate to commercial exploitation, and 15
(2) The aggregate which had been exploited by the appellant did not, except
to the limited extent set out in the assessment, come within the
exemptions to aggregates levy contained in Section 17(3)(b) and (d) of the
3. HMRC argue that the said exemptions are specific and do not cover site 20 clearance and levelling in order to prepare the ground for construction at a later date.
4. It is freely conceded that the calculations underpinning the assessment are not,
and cannot be correct, since the appellant has consistently failed, or refused, to furnish
details of, for example, drainage. HMRC have endeavoured to compensate for that by
allowing tonnage that would not be exempt, such as in respect of the foundations for 25 the car parking by squaring off the building footprint, and by allowing all of the
exempt items in the period 10/10 to 04/14, whereas it is clear that some of the exempt
extraction must have taken place in the periods prior to that.
The appellant’s arguments
30
5. Mr Knight argued that on 21 April 2010, HMRC wrote to the appellant in
response to a claim that the aggregates extracted from Torosay Sand Pit (“the site”)
should be exempted from aggregate levies confirming that that was the case and that
there would therefore be a repayment. The appellant was therefore entitled to proceed
on the basis that the extraction of aggregates from the site was indeed exempt and fell 35 within the statutory exemptions. There should be no assessment.
6. He states that aggregate has only been excavated from the site in accordance
with the appellant’s objective to create an industrial site on the basis of the requisite
planning consents which had been obtained.
7. He contends that HMRC’s calculations underpinning the assessment are not 40 based on factual evidence and in particular states that 35,000 tonnes of material has
To continue reading
Request your trial