The taxpayer sought to challenge in Europe the ruling by the respondents that the mobile phones they supplied did not meet the criteria to be zero-rated for VAT. A decision would be unlikely before 2006. They sought judicial review now of the refusal of the commissioners to make an interim payment.
Held: There exists in rule 25.7 an ability in the courts to provide for an interim order of a nature not specifically provided for. Because a remedy existed, there was no infringement of the European rules. The rule set out the preconditions for such an order, and the applicant did not meet them.
Judges:
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Dyson Mr Justice Bennett
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 200, Times 09-Mar-2005
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Capital One Developments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 4-Feb-2002
The company sought repayment of some 8 million pounds overpaid VAT from the Commissioners. That claim was yet to be determined, but the company sough an order for interim payments, on the basis that it could repay if necessary.
Held: Whilst . .
Cited – Garage Molenheide BVBA (C-286/94), Peter Schepens (C-340/95), Bureau Rik Decan-Business Research and Development NV (BRD) (C-401/95), Sanders BVBA (C-47/96) vBelgian State ECJ 18-Dec-1997
Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) – Scope – Right to deduction of VAT – Retention of balance of VAT due – Principle of proportionality . .
Appeal from – Teleos Plc and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Customs and Excise Admn 6-May-2004
. .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Teleos Plc and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Customs and Excise Admn 6-May-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223278
