British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> Yavuz (T/A Foster Off Licence & Supermarket) v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18593 (16 April 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18593.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18593
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- and –
- This is an appeal against two assessments. The first assesses tax of £59,374 for the periods from 1st June 2001 to 31st July 2002, and the second assesses tax of £13,714 for the period from 1st August 2002 to 31st October 2002.
- The Appellant appealed (through his representatives FTI Business Services Ltd.) challenging the assessments as not having been made to the best of judgment pursuant to section 73 VAT Act 1994, or alternatively as being excessive in terms of the amount of tax assessed. The Appellant made an application for the appeal to be made out of time. That was allowed by consent.
- No further communication has been received by the Tribunal from the Appellant or his representatives. There was a pre-trial review before Dr. Avery Jones in the summer of 2003 at which no appearance was made by the Appellant. Dr. Avery Jones's subsequent Directions were not complied with by the Appellant, nor were the consequential Directions made by Dr. Brice.
- The hearing was fixed over 5 months in advance.
- Mr. Holl informed the Tribunal that he had in the last ten days contacted the Appellant's representatives and informed or reminded them of the hearing date.
- On the appeal being called on for hearing, the Appellant did not appear in person or by his representative. The Tribunal decided to proceed to consider the appeal in the absence of the Appellant (Rule 26(2) of the VAT Tribunals Rules 1986 refers).
- Mr. Holl, for the Commissioners, applied to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 18(2) of the VAT Tribunals Rules 1986.
- The Tribunal decided that the circumstances summarised above showed that the Appellant through his representatives, FII Business Services Ltd., had been guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay in the conduct of the appeal and that the appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 18(2).
- After the Tribunal had announced its decision, Mr. Holl asked the Tribunal to direct that the Appellant pay £100 on account of the Commissioners' costs. Not only Mr. Holl but also two officers had attended (as potential witnesses). The Tribunal makes that direction pursuant to Rule 29(1)(a) of the VAT Tribunals Rules 1986 specifying that the payment on account of costs be made within 28 days after the release date of this Decision.
Assessment under s73(1) VATA – No appearance by the Appellant or representative at the hearing – Appeal considered in the absence of the Appellant – Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution – Rule 18(2) VAT Tribunals Rules 1986 applied
LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE
NIYAZI YAVUZ Appellant
T/A FOSTERS OFF LICENCE/SUPERMARKET
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal: MR JOHN WALTERS QC (Chairman)
MRS L M SALISBURY
Sitting in public in London on 15 March 2004
The Appellant did not appear and was not represented
Mr Jonathan Holl, Advocate, of the Office of the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents
LON/03/0219