BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Jaguar Couriers Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2005] UKVAT V19250 (12 September 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19250.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19250 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
19250
MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: MAN/05/0249
JAGUAR COURIERS LIMITED Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents
Tribunal Chairman: Michael Tildesley OBE
Sitting in public in Birmingham on the 6 September 2005
DIRECTION
under Rule 30(8)
This appeal against a decision of the Respondents with respect to a surcharge assessment dated the 17 September 2004 in the sum of £3,449.58 and being a reasonable excuse appeal as defined by rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended coming on for hearing this day
And upon hearing Jackie Roe and David Cheeseman for the Appellant and Bernard Haley of the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents
And this tribunal having heard this appeal and having announced its decision
And the Appellant and the Respondents by their said representatives stating pursuant to the rule 30(8) of the said Rules as amended that they do not require the said decision to be recorded in a written document in accordance with rule 30(1) of the said Rules
This tribunal finds that the Appellant does not have a reasonable excuse for the default which resulted in the Respondents making the assessment under appeal
And this tribunal directs that this appeal is dismissed and that there is to be no direction as to costs
Mr Hayley, after hearing the evidence withdrew the default surcharge of £2,595.89 for the period ending 31 October 2003. The consequence of Mr Hayley's decision was that the default surcharge which was under appeal was reduced to £2,299.72 which means that the Appellant will receive a small credit in respect of the default surcharge.
MICHAEL TILDESLEY
CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 12 September 2005
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005
