The Commissioners had been ordered to repay VAT to the taxpayer. A subsequent decision of the ECJ meant that the sum should have been repaid to the Commissioners. The taxpayer now alleged that the commissioners were out of the two year maximum time to make the reclaim under the Act.
Held: The decision of the European Court was for these purposes more than an act of law, but was also a fact giving rise to the right to reclaim, and time ran from that decision. The commissioners were not out of time.
The Vice-Chancellor
[2003] EWHC 857 (Ch), Times 30-Apr-2003
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Primback Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 15-May-2001
A company made arrangements for finance for its customers to purchase products at an apparent zero rate of interest. In fact the finance company deducted an undisclosed commission before forwarding payment to the shop. The shop wanted to pay VAT . .
Cited – Regina v Jagdev CACD 31-May-2002
The court was considering the terms of a confiscation order. It decided to postpone the decision beyond the six month limit. Questions had arisen about the apparent shift of the burden of proof. Two cases were due to be heard by the Court of Appeal . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – DFS Furniture Company Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 16-Mar-2004
The taxpayers said that the Commissioners’ assessment to VAT was out of time, and appealed a finding that it was not. They said that time should run from the point at which the Commissioners knew the facts upon which the assessment was based. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.181320