United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Varnkesh (t/a Perfect Pizza) v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT V19021 (12 April 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19021.html
Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19021

---

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

---

Varnkesh (t/a Perfect Pizza) v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT V19021 (12 April 2005)

19021

DEFAULT SURCHARGE — cheque for first payment of VAT for £4,341.31 not received — fire at sorting office — no — second cheque received late — no reasonable excuse — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

PARVIZ MOHAMMADPOR VARNKESH

Trading as PERFECT PIZZA Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: David S Porter (Chairman)

Marjorie Kostick BA FCA CTA

Sitting in public in Birmingham on 3 March 2005

No-one appearing for the Appellant

Bernard Haley of the Solicitor's office of HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION

1. Parviz Mohammadpour Varenkesh (the Appellant) appeals against a surcharge for the period 01.03.04 to 31.5.04 reduced to the sum of £651.19 arising from his cheque for the VAT liability in the sum of £4,341.31 being lost in a fire at the Northampton Sorting Office
2. Bernard Haley of the Solicitor's Office of H M Customs and Excise appeared for the Respondents and produced a bundle of documents for the Tribunal. As no one appeared for the Appellant, this Tribunal determined to proceed under rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Rules 1986 (as amended).
3. We found the following facts. The Appellant received an assessment for tax and surcharge for the period 05/04 in May 2004 in the sum of VAT £5991 with a surcharge of £898.65. On 26 July 2004 Thompson & Co Chartered Accountants wrote on his behalf to the Respondents stating that the Appellant had sent a cheque number 000323 for £4,341.31, which did not appear to have reached the Respondents. The Appellant had checked with his bank but the cheque had not passed through his account. He thought that might be because he had not put his VAT number on the cheque. The Appellant also alleged that there had been a fire at the Northampton Sorting Office and the cheque might have been destroyed then. The Appellant produced no further evidence either as to the fire or as to his bank statements. From enquires made by the Respondents it is clear that there had been a fire at the Northampton Sorting Office in September of the previous year. A duplicate return was issued to the Appellant on 22 July 2004 and the Appellant returned it on 26 July 2004 with a cheque for £4,341.31. Southend on Sea received the cheque on 27 July 2004. As a result the return and tax were not received on time but the surcharge was reduced to £651.19.
4. Mr Haley submitted that there was no reasonable excuse. The Appellant should have been aware that his cheque had not gone through his account. The fact that it did not have his VAT number on it would not have meant it had gone astray. Although there had been a fire at the sorting office this could not have destroyed the first cheque as the fire was in the previous year.
5. My colleague and I have considered the evidence and find that there is no reasonable excuse and we dismiss the appeal. The cheque, if it existed, could not have been destroyed by the fire at the sorting office as the fire preceded the assessment. We also note from the bundle of documents provided by Mr Haley that the Appellant has been in default on various occasions since 08.01.
6. As the Respondents requested no costs none are awarded.

DAVID PORTER

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 12 April 2004