Jordan v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF VEHICLE (see also EXCISE APPEAL) : Proportionality) [2016] UKFTT 104 (TC) (17 February 2016)

Jordan v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF VEHICLE (see also EXCISE APPEAL) : Proportionality) [2016] UKFTT 104 (TC) (17 February 2016)

The review decision was irrational as it was based on a material misunderstanding of HMRC policy, factual errors regarding the appellant's connection to the site and other vehicles, and insufficient evidence that the appellant deliberately misused rebated fuel. The decision-maker's mistaken belief that all vehicles...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 104 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Mr Joseph Jordan; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; further review directed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Restoration of Seized Goods, Proportionality, Judicial Review Principles, Application of Policy, Errors of Fact
Tax Law Administrative Law Excise Duty Restoration of Seized Goods Proportionality Judicial Review Principles Application of Policy Errors of Fact

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Joseph Jordan

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's decision not to restore the seized vehicle was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the decision was based on material errors of fact or misapplication of policy
  3. 3 Whether the presence of rebated fuel in the running tank justified non-restoration

Ratio Decidendi

The review decision was irrational as it was based on a material misunderstanding of HMRC policy, factual errors regarding the appellant's connection to the site and other vehicles, and insufficient evidence that the appellant deliberately misused rebated fuel. The decision-maker's mistaken belief that all vehicles at a laundering site should not be restored, and the misattribution of laundered fuel to the appellant, rendered the exercise of discretion fundamentally flawed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; further review directed

Orders

  • HMRC to conduct a further review of the original decision not to restore the vehicle, in light of the Tribunal's findings and admitted facts.