Motorplus Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Motorplus Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether the supplies in question were exempt or taxable because HMRC's denial of the VAT input tax claim was based on the assertion that no VAT had been charged, which necessarily requires consideration of the supplies' taxability. The Respondents failed to establish that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, as the Appellant's case is realistic and not fanciful under the applicable summary judgment principles.

Parties
Appellant: Motorplus Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2025
Procedural Posture
VAT Input Tax Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal Under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules
Outcome
Application to strike out appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Value Added Tax, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Input Tax Recovery, Strike Out Applications
Tax Law Value Added Tax Tribunal Jurisdiction Input Tax Recovery Strike Out Applications

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motorplus Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Input Tax Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal Under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine if supplies were exempt or taxable for VAT purposes
  2. 2 Whether the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c)
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents' refusal to allow VAT input tax recovery was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether the supplies in question were exempt or taxable because HMRC's denial of the VAT input tax claim was based on the assertion that no VAT had been charged, which necessarily requires consideration of the supplies' taxability. The Respondents failed to establish that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, as the Appellant's case is realistic and not fanciful under the applicable summary judgment principles.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Parties to submit agreed draft directions or respective submissions for further case management within 21 days
  • Appellant may renew its application regarding preclusion of Respondents' defence within 14 days, Respondents to respond within 14 days of receipt