The limitation period for the recovery of overpaid VAT was alleged to offend the principle of equivalence.
Held: Moses J said: ‘In my judgment no comparison can be made with other types of tax such as income tax payable in respect of an individual’s profits or the tax on a document imposed by stamp duty. Other forms of indirect taxation, such as excise duty, are wholly different types of tax.
It seems to me that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, exemplified in EDILIZIA, requires a comparison between the approach of a member state to the recovery of tax charged in breach of Community rules and the recovery of the same tax in breach of domestic rules. Any wider enquiry would invite unnecessary argument as to whether there is a true comparison.’
Moses J
[1998] EWHC 1143 (Admin), [1999] STC 205, [1999] Eu LR 450, [1999] 1 CMLR 1152, [1999] BTC 5073, [1999] BVC 107
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise CA 14-Dec-1999
The taxpayer discovered that it had over several years made overpayments of VAT on chocolate covered biscuits because of a mistake as to the tax mutual with the defendants.
Held: MandS’s challenge to section 80(4) (as infringing EU law) . .
First instance – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 4-Feb-2009
The taxpayer requested refund of VAT overpaid on chocolate covered cakes. The CandE resisted saying that the money had been substantially already paid by its customers. The case had been referred twice to the ECJ, who answered that the maintenance . .
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.280499