Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The First-tier Tribunal refused Smartprice (NE) Ltd’s application for broader disclosure in a VAT appeal, holding the requested material was too wide, disproportionate, and not necessary to decide the pleaded issues.
The Tribunal allowed Sweetmotion’s VAT appeal in part, denying input tax only for transactions from 19 January 2021 and reducing the company penalty by 25%.
Rush & Anor v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 442 (19 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal upheld convictions for conspiracy to cheat the public revenue, holding the jury did not need to know the precise VAT-fraud mechanics.
The Tribunal allowed this VAT appeal in part, upholding input tax denials and penalties only for later transactions after HMRC warnings linked the supplies to fraud.
Confiscation judgment in a large excise duty and VAT fraud. The court held the defendants jointly obtained the full benefit and made orders to prevent double recovery.
Marwaha & Ors, R. v [2026] EWCR 3 (16 March 2026)
Confiscation orders were made against three fraud defendants for the full joint benefit of excise duty and VAT evasion, with inflation uplift and anti-double-recovery terms.
The Tribunal found, based on extensive documentary evidence and adverse inferences from the absence of cross-examination, that Mr Ellis was actively involved in systematic VAT fraud, that deliberate inaccuracies in VAT returns were attributable to him, and that amounts withdrawn from companies were earnings, not loans. The penalties and assessments were correctly calculated, and Mr Ellis knew of the deliberate failure to deduct tax and NICs. All appeals were dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal in a VAT fraud case, holding that the applicant had not shown any arguable error of law in the FTT’s findings on knowledge.
The appeal was struck out because the appellant had no realistic prospect of success; the evidence established that he knowingly acquired and dealt in excise goods with unpaid duty, all acts were attributable to him as sole director, and no credible evidence was provided to support reliance on third parties or lack of knowledge. Findings from previous VAT proceedings were binding, and Article 6 ECHR was not breached.
Source excerpt
SKM neither knew nor ought to have known its transactions with BTL were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion; reasonable explanations existed for trading patterns; due diligence shortcomings did not amount to constructive knowledge; HMRC failed to discharge burden of proof; input tax denial, penalty, and officer liability not justified.
Source excerpt
Explore more
