[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 >> Hellesden Leather & Cloth Furniture v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKVAT V19920 (07 December 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2006/V19920.html Cite as: [2006] UKVAT V19920

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

19920

Value Added Tax – Default Surcharge – Reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

HELLESDEN LEATHER & CLOTH FURNITURE CO LTD Appellant

and –

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: DR KAMEEL KHAN (Chairman)

MRS C FARQUHARSON ACA

Sitting in public in Lowestoft on 13 November 2006

Mr T Milton, Managing Director, for the Appellant

Mr S Chambers, Advocate, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006


 


DECISION

1. The appeal is against a decision of the Respondents with respect to a Default Surcharge in the sum of £2,526.04 issued on 26 September 2003 for the period 31/07. The surcharge was levied at the rate of 15% since the VAT return and payment was not received by the due date of 31 August 2003. The VAT return and payment was not received at Southend until 10 September 2003.

Appellant's Arguments

2. The Appellant states that the return and payment were sent to the Colchester VAT office. The cheque was posted on 30 August 2003, which was a bank holiday period and the cheque was received at Southend VAT office on 9 September 2003 and cleared on 17 September 2003. The Appellant confirmed that he had sufficient funds in his account to make the VAT payment. The Tribunal asked the Appellant to provide further evidence of date of posting, postal delays, copy of cheque stubs immediately preceding and following the VAT cheque and any details of postal procedure. The Appellant replied the same day by fax stating that he was unable to trace the bank ledger sheets for August or provide any further evidence as requested.

The Commissioners' Arguments

3. HMRC state that the due date for payment and returns was 31 August 2003 and the date stamped by HMRC showed receipt was on 10 September 2003. They further contend that there is no evidence that the posting took place on 30 August 2003.
4. We have looked at the evidence and found that there was no bank holiday period on 30 August 2003. The Appellant has been unable to satisfy the Tribunal that the return and payment was dispatched at such time and in such manner that it was reasonable to expect it would be received by the due date or that there was a reasonable excuse for the return or tax not being sent on time. There is also clear evidence from HMRC that the return and payment was received on 10 September 2003 and stamped accordingly.
5. The appeal would accordingly be dismissed.

DR KAMEEL KHAN

CHAIRMAN

RELEASED: 7 December 2006

LON/05/1128