Fleming (t/a Bodycraft) v Customs & Excise [2005] EWHC 232 (Ch) (25 February 2005)

Fleming (t/a Bodycraft) v Customs & Excise [2005] EWHC 232 (Ch) (25 February 2005)

Although the appellant had an accrued right to repayment of input tax before the imposition of the three-year limitation period, the absence of transitional provisions did not indefinitely entitle him to claim; his delay of three years and five months after the regulation came into force meant the principle of legal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 232 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Michael Fleming T/A Bodycraft; Respondents: Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2005
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal and Judicial Review / High Court Appeal From VAT Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
VAT Input Tax Deduction, Limitation Periods, Community Law Rights, Transitional Provisions
Tax Law European Union Law VAT Input Tax Deduction Limitation Periods Community Law Rights Transitional Provisions

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Fleming T/A Bodycraft

Appellant

Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal and Judicial Review / High Court Appeal From VAT Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation 29(1A) of the Value Added Tax Regulations, imposing a three-year limitation period without transitional provisions, unlawfully barred the appellant's claim for repayment of input tax accrued before its introduction
  2. 2 Whether Community law principles require disapplication of the limitation period in the absence of transitional provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellant had an accrued right to repayment of input tax before the imposition of the three-year limitation period, the absence of transitional provisions did not indefinitely entitle him to claim; his delay of three years and five months after the regulation came into force meant the principle of legal certainty justified refusal of the claim, and the limitation period was properly applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The judicial review proceedings are dismissed.