Starglaze Windows & Conservatories Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 119 (TC) (12 March 2010)

Starglaze Windows & Conservatories Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 119 (TC) (12 March 2010)

The Appellant did not follow the correct procedure for reclaiming overpaid VAT. Regulation 38 was not applicable as there was no reduction in consideration, only an error in issuing invoices for supplies that never occurred. The internal schedule did not constitute a document with the same effect as a credit note,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 119
Parties
Appellant: Starglaze Windows & Conservatories Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 March 2010
Procedural Posture
VAT Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT, Output Tax, Overpayment, Set Off, Voluntary Disclosure, Credit Notes, VAT Assessment Procedures
Tax Law VAT Output Tax Overpayment Set Off Voluntary Disclosure Credit Notes VAT Assessment Procedures

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Starglaze Windows & Conservatories Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant followed the correct procedure to reclaim overpaid VAT via set-off in its VAT return
  2. 2 Whether Regulation 38 of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 applied
  3. 3 Whether an effective voluntary disclosure was made under section 80 VAT Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant did not follow the correct procedure for reclaiming overpaid VAT. Regulation 38 was not applicable as there was no reduction in consideration, only an error in issuing invoices for supplies that never occurred. The internal schedule did not constitute a document with the same effect as a credit note, as there was no communication or acceptance by the customers. No effective voluntary disclosure was made, as the requirements of Public Notice 700/45 were not met. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • If any application for costs is to be made, it must be submitted within 14 days of the release of this decision.