Smartprice (NE) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE - Disclosure - Application for general and specific disclosure) [2026] UKFTT 721 (TC) (15 May 2026)

Smartprice (NE) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE - Disclosure - Application for general and specific disclosure) [2026] UKFTT 721 (TC) (15 May 2026)

The application for further disclosure was refused because the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the additional disclosure sought was relevant, proportionate, or required for the fair determination of the pleaded issues in this Kittel VAT appeal. The Tribunal found that the Respondents had conducted reasonable searches, that the default disclosure regime under rule 27 remained appropriate, and that granting the application would risk disproportionate burden, delay, and inefficiency.

Citation
[2026] UKFTT 721 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Smartprice (NE) Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 May 2026
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Interlocutory Application for General and Specific Disclosure
Outcome
Application for general and specific disclosure refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure, VAT Fraud, Kittel Principle, Tribunal Procedure, Proportionality in Disclosure
Tax Law Civil Procedure Disclosure VAT Fraud Kittel Principle Tribunal Procedure Proportionality in Disclosure

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smartprice (NE) Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Interlocutory Application for General and Specific Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further general and specific disclosure should be ordered beyond the default regime under rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules in a Kittel VAT appeal
  2. 2 Whether fairness or the existence of earlier criminal proceedings justifies wider disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents have conducted adequate searches for relevant documents

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further disclosure was refused because the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the additional disclosure sought was relevant, proportionate, or required for the fair determination of the pleaded issues in this Kittel VAT appeal. The Tribunal found that the Respondents had conducted reasonable searches, that the default disclosure regime under rule 27 remained appropriate, and that granting the application would risk disproportionate burden, delay, and inefficiency.

Court Disposition

Application for general and specific disclosure refused

Orders

  • No further disclosure is ordered.