Zaman v Revenue & Customs (VAT - case remitted by Upper Tribunal to same panel of FTT after original FTT decision set aside (error as to burden of proof)) [2023] UKFTT 404 (TC) (28 April 2023)

Zaman v Revenue & Customs (VAT - case remitted by Upper Tribunal to same panel of FTT after original FTT decision set aside (error as to burden of proof)) [2023] UKFTT 404 (TC) (28 April 2023)

After weighing all the evidence, including the documentation, corroborating third-party confirmations, and the commercial context, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the alcohol sold by Zamco was neither located in the UK at the point of sale nor removed to the UK as part of Zamco’s sales....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] UKFTT 404
Parties
Appellant: Mohammed Zaman; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
VAT Penalty Appeal (personal Liability Notice) / Remitted to First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) After Upper Tribunal Set Aside Original Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
VAT, Burden of Proof, Personal Liability Notice, Assessment Challenge, Place of Supply
Tax Law VAT Burden of Proof Personal Liability Notice Assessment Challenge Place of Supply

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Zaman

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Penalty Appeal (personal Liability Notice) / Remitted to First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) After Upper Tribunal Set Aside Original Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an inaccuracy in Zamco’s VAT returns justifying a penalty and personal liability notice on the director
  2. 2 Whether the place of supply of goods was outside the UK
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof to show the VAT assessment was incorrect

Ratio Decidendi

After weighing all the evidence, including the documentation, corroborating third-party confirmations, and the commercial context, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the alcohol sold by Zamco was neither located in the UK at the point of sale nor removed to the UK as part of Zamco’s sales. Therefore, the appellant discharged the burden of proof to show the VAT assessment was incorrect, and the penalty and personal liability notice could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal against the personal liability notice and penalty is allowed.