[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 >> Kangathevy Ragunathan (t/a Jeson Traders) v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V19999 (05 February 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2007/V19999.html Cite as: [2007] UKVAT V19999

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

19999

ASSESSMENT – declared sales not corresponding to Z readings on the till – appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

KANGATHEVY RAGUNATHAN T/A JESON TRADERS Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S

REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)

ROBERTA JOHNSON

Sitting in public in London on 2 February 2007

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Jonathan Holl, Senior Officer of HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007


 


DECISION

1. Mrs Kangathevy Ragunathan, trading as Jeson Traders, appeals against an assessment to VAT of £16,795 made on 4 June 2004 for periods 06/01 to 03/04, since reduced to £12,207. The Appellant sent an email to the Tribunal at 8.47 am on the day of the hearing saying "I am unable to come for hearing today, I haven't got money for travelling and I don't know how to come your place." Customs were represented by Mr Jonathan Holl.
2. Mr Holl applied for a hearing in the Appellant's absence under Rule 26(2).
3. The Appellant's accountants Raj & Co wrote to the Tribunal on 14 December 2006 saying that they were no longer acting. The hearing notice had been sent to them and so they must have informed the Appellant of the date of the hearing for her to have been able to inform the Tribunal that she would not attend. Presumably they also informed her of the Tribunal's address, or if they did not she could easily have obtained the information from them. Raj & Co have been corresponding with Customs since March 2004 and it was as a result of their representations that the assessment was reduced as mentioned above.
4. The method of making the assessment was to take the Appellant's Z readings from the till between 27 February 2003 and 8 December 2003 although these are not complete and on some days there is more than one Z reading. The Senior Officer, Mr R E R Piper, took the readings where the time of day was early in the morning and where the next consecutive number was available from which he was able to calculate the average daily gross takings amounting to £544.77, but with a wide variation from £329.97 to £808.14. That figure for daily gross takings corresponds closely with the declared sales figure from March 1998 to December 2000 where the average per quarter is £50,561 (based on £544.77 it would be £49,574). However for the period March 2001 to December 2003 the average sales were lower and the assessment is based on the difference between the expected VAT on the basis of the average gross takings of £544.77 calculated from the Z readings, taking into account a proportion for zero-rated sales. Mr Piper offered to consider any further input tax credit if invoices were produced.
5. Mr Holl told us (and we accept) that the Appellant was no longer trading as the business had been transferred as a going concern and the new owners had stated that the expected turnover was £260,000. A further assessment had been made on the Appellant since the one under appeal using a similar method.
6. Since the assessment is based on the Appellant's own till Z readings, and Raj & Co have over a considerable period commented on the method, we do not consider that there is any unfairness to the Appellant in hearing the appeal in her absence. We do not accept that she could not afford the fare from Croydon having sold the business as a going concern, nor do we accept that she did not attend because she did not know the Tribunal's address. We have considered the method used for determining the assessment and consider it fair and reasonable to the Appellant and it is based on the Appellant's own till records. Mr Piper has answered the points made by Raj & Co in what we consider an entirely fair manner, and he has made the reduction on the assessment on account of their representations by giving the Appellant the benefit of the doubt.
7. Accordingly we consider that the points that could be made on the Appellant's behalf have been made and answered by Customs. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
8. Since the Appellant did not attend she is entitled to ask the Tribunal for a re-hearing within 14 days according to the VAT Tribunals Rules. At Mr Holl's suggestion we extend this period to 28 days from the date of release of this decision to enable her to take further advice since Raj & Co have only recently ceased to act. If she applies for a re-hearing this should include her full reasons for not attending the hearing on this occasion. If she does not apply within this extended period this decision will become final.

JOHN F. AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE DATE: 5 February 2007

LON/05/0032