NAS & Co Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 50 (TC) (06 January 2014)

NAS & Co Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 50 (TC) (06 January 2014)

The tribunal found that HMRC's original and review decisions not to restore the goods were unreasonable due to reliance on undisclosed evidence (Smith Report), failure to consider relevant invoices and reversal of deregistration, and lack of adequate reasons. The decision could not reasonably have been arrived at, and the deemed confirmation was also unreasonable.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 50 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: NAS & Co Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restoration of Seized Goods, Excise Duty, Reasonableness of Administrative Decisions, Human Rights Act Compliance, Review Procedure Under Finance Act 1994
Tax Law Excise Law Administrative Law Restoration of Seized Goods Excise Duty Reasonableness of Administrative Decisions Human Rights Act Compliance Review Procedure Under Finance Act 1994

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NAS & Co Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's decision not to restore seized wine and beer was reasonable under section 16(4) Finance Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the decision was unreasonable due to reliance on undisclosed evidence
  3. 3 Whether the same decision was inevitable based on relevant facts

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that HMRC's original and review decisions not to restore the goods were unreasonable due to reliance on undisclosed evidence (Smith Report), failure to consider relevant invoices and reversal of deregistration, and lack of adequate reasons. The decision could not reasonably have been arrived at, and the deemed confirmation was also unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • HMRC's decision not to restore the goods is set aside
  • HMRC is required to conduct a further review of the original decision in accordance with tribunal directions