United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Sky Chemicals Ltd v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT V19042 (18 April 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19042.html
Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19042

---

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

---

Sky Chemicals Ltd v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT V19042 (18 April 2005)

19042

DEFAULT SURCHARGE — no-one appearing — unofficial payment by instalments of outstanding VAT — payments late — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

SKY CHEMICALS LIMITED Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: David S Porter (Chairman)

Sitting in public in Manchester on 23 March 2005

No one appearing for the Appellant

Richard Mansell of counsel, instructed by the Solicitor's office of HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION

1. Sky Chemicals Limited (the Appellant) appeal against a surcharge in the sum of £894.95 arising from an agreement that the Appellant believed enabled it to pay by instalments outside the terms of the default surcharge provisions.
2. Richard Mansell of counsel instructed by 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. I found the following facts. The Appellant received an assessment for surcharge for the period 08/03 on 17 October 2003 in the sum of £894.95. On 13 December 2004 the Appellant appealed against the surcharge and in a note attached to the notice of appeal stated:-

" …We called the VAT office at the time and spoke to an officer who we informed that the payment would be made at the end of October 2003. We were told that this would be fine. We proceeded to pay the requested sum back at the arranged time …"

4. By a letter dated the 5 November 2003 the Commissioners replied

"... Discussion prior to and subsequently entry into any agreement with the Debt Management Unit does not prevent the recording of a default surcharge. I am assured that the Debt Advisory Office would not in the course of discussions give any undertaking that penalties would not be imposed; indeed it is the practice to inform a trader that Default Surcharge penalties continue to apply …"

5. Mr Mansell submitted that there was no reasonable excuse. The Appellant appeared to have agreed an informal arrangement of his own making in dealing with the payment of outstanding arrears. The default surcharge provisions continue to apply even where there has been a formal agreement with the Commissioners for payment of arrears to be by way of instalments. In the circumstances the appeal should be dismissed
6. I have considered the evidence and find that there is no reasonable excuse and I dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant has not entered into a formal arrangement for arrears to be paid by instalments. Further I am also satisfied that the Commissioners would have advised the Appellant that the default surcharge provisions would continue to apply.
7. As the Respondents requested no costs none are awarded.

DAVID S PORTER

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 18 April 2005