Cell Trading (UK) LTD v Revenue And Customs [2011] UKFTT B1 (TC) (17 January 2011)

Cell Trading (UK) LTD v Revenue And Customs [2011] UKFTT B1 (TC) (17 January 2011)

The Tribunal found that Cell Trading (UK) LTD, through its director, knew or ought to have known that its transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. The deal chains exhibited features of MTIC fraud, lacked commercial rationale, and due diligence was insufficient. The appellant's evidence was not credible or reliable, and the appeal was dismissed under the principles established in Kittel and Mobilx.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT B1 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Cell Trading (UK) LTD; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 January 2011
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Value Added Tax, MTIC Fraud, Input Tax Repayment, Abuse of Rights, Imputed Knowledge
Tax Law European Union Law Value Added Tax MTIC Fraud Input Tax Repayment Abuse of Rights Imputed Knowledge

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

Parties

Cell Trading (UK) LTD

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to repayment of input VAT in respect of 81 transactions allegedly connected to MTIC fraud
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had actual or imputed knowledge of VAT fraud in the transaction chains

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Cell Trading (UK) LTD, through its director, knew or ought to have known that its transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. The deal chains exhibited features of MTIC fraud, lacked commercial rationale, and due diligence was insufficient. The appellant's evidence was not credible or reliable, and the appeal was dismissed under the principles established in Kittel and Mobilx.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Repayment of input VAT in the sum of £6,630,969.77 is refused
  • No order as to costs