United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> TR Shop Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20776 (15 August 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2008/V20776.html
Cite as: [2008] UKVAT V20776

---

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

---

TR Shop Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20776 (15 August 2008)

20776

VAT – Penalty under section 66 VATA for failure to deliver an EC Sales List – Whether reasonable excuse for failure – Held no

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

TR SHOP LTD Appellant

and –

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: CHARLES HELLIER (Chairman)

SUNIL DAS

Sitting in public in London on 2 July 2008

The Appellant was not represented

Jonathan Holl for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008


 


DECISION UNDER RULE 30(8)

1. Before the start of the hearing the Tribunal's clerk had telephoned Mr Louhi, the director of the Appellant. He had indicated to the clerk that he would not be attending the appeal. Mr Holl also told the Tribunal that he had spoken to Mr Louhi in the previous week and that Mr Louhi had been aware of the date fixed for the hearing.
2. Regulation 26(2) of the Tribunal's rules permits a tribunal to hear an appeal in the absence of a party or his representative. We decided to hear the appeal in Mr Louhi's absence.
3. The appeal was in relation to a penalty assessed under section 66 VAT Act 1994 for the late submission of an EC Sales List. Section 66(7) provides that a person shall not be treated as being in default in respect of the obligation to deliver such a list if he satisfies the tribunal that there is a reasonable excuse for the list not having been dispatched in time.
4. Mr Louhi's notice of appeal indicated that the appeal was in respect of a "default surcharge (late returns) (on grounds of reasonable excuse only)". In his accompanying letter he indicated that he was without administrative support running a small business and that he had taken steps to avoid further late submissions. We concluded that the Appellant's case was that he had a reasonable excuse: we could see no other eligible ground of appeal.
5. We considered Mr Louhi's letter and Mr Holl's representations. We decided to dismiss the appeal, and announced our decision.
6. Regulation 2 of the Tribunal's rules defines a "reasonable excuse appeal" as, inter alia, an appeal against a penalty on grounds confined to those set out in section 66(7). Regulation 30(8) of the Tribunal's rules provides that if, at the conclusion of the hearing of a reasonable excuse appeal, the chairman announces the decision he may ask the parties present whether they require a fully reasoned decision to be produced, and if they do not provide a simple record of the decision.
7. After we had announced our decision Mr Holl indicated that he would be content with a simple record of our decision.
8. We therefore direct that the appeal be dismissed.

CHARLES HELLIER

CHAIRMAN

RELEASED: 15 August 2008

LON 2008/1020