Fleming (t/a Bodycraft) v Revenue & Customs

Fleming (t/a Bodycraft) v Revenue & Customs

Regulation 29(1A) of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, which imposed a three-year time limit for input tax claims without any transitional provision, is incompatible with Community law principles of effectiveness and legal certainty as articulated in Marks & Spencer and Grundig. The absence of a transitional...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Fleming (trading as Bodycraft); Respondent: HM Revenue & Customs; Intervener: Condé Nast Publications Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
VAT, Limitation Periods, Community Law Rights, Transitional Provisions, Legal Certainty, Legitimate Expectations
Tax Law European Union Law Administrative Law VAT Limitation Periods Community Law Rights Transitional Provisions Legal Certainty +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fleming (trading as Bodycraft)

Appellant

HM Revenue & Customs

Respondent

Condé Nast Publications Ltd

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulation 29(1A) of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, which imposed a three-year time limit for input tax claims without transitional provisions, is compatible with Community law principles of effectiveness and legal certainty.
  2. 2 Whether a transitional period can or must be implied or read into regulation 29(1A) where none was provided.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a transitional period requires the regulation to be disapplied to accrued Community law rights.

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 29(1A) of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, which imposed a three-year time limit for input tax claims without any transitional provision, is incompatible with Community law principles of effectiveness and legal certainty as articulated in Marks & Spencer and Grundig. The absence of a transitional period means the regulation must be disapplied to accrued Community law rights, and Mr Fleming's claim could not be rejected solely for being made outside the new time limit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; regulation 29(1A) is disapplied to Mr Fleming's claim for input tax recovery.