Pawar v Revenue And Customs (Application for permission to make a late appeal - Personal Liability Notice - VAT penalty) [2023] UKFTT 81 (TC) (25 January 2023)

Pawar v Revenue And Customs (Application for permission to make a late appeal - Personal Liability Notice - VAT penalty) [2023] UKFTT 81 (TC) (25 January 2023)

The Appellant failed to provide a good reason for the 38-month delay in notifying the appeal. The review conclusion letter in November 2018 clearly set out the need to appeal within 30 days. Reliance on adviser error, wilful disregard, or assumption that matters would resolve without action are not good reasons. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] UKFTT 81
Parties
Appellant: Tajinder Singh Pawar; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Make a Late Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision on Late Appeal Application
Outcome
Application for permission to notify a late appeal refused; substantive appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Personal Liability Notice, VAT Penalty, Late Appeal, Tribunal Procedure
Tax Law Personal Liability Notice VAT Penalty Late Appeal Tribunal Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tajinder Singh Pawar

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Make a Late Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision on Late Appeal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for a late appeal against a Personal Liability Notice for a VAT penalty
  2. 2 Whether the reasons for the 38-month delay justify granting permission for a late appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to provide a good reason for the 38-month delay in notifying the appeal. The review conclusion letter in November 2018 clearly set out the need to appeal within 30 days. Reliance on adviser error, wilful disregard, or assumption that matters would resolve without action are not good reasons. The prejudice to HMRC and the importance of respecting statutory time limits outweigh the prejudice to the Appellant. Permission for a late appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to notify a late appeal refused; substantive appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to notify a late appeal to the Tribunal is refused.
  • The substantive appeal is dismissed.