[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Sterile Technologies INC (N.I.) Ltd v Customs & Excise [2003] UKVAT V18299 (27 August 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2003/V18299.html Cite as: [2003] UKVAT V18299

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: LON/2002/1125

Copy sent to:

Appellant/Applicant

Respondents

STERILE TECHNOLOGIES INC (N.I.) LTD Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: MARGARET ANN DINSMORE (Chairman)

Sitting in public in Belfast on 1 July 2003

DIRECTION

under Rule 30(8)

THIS APPEAL against a decision of the Respondents with respect to the issue of Default Surcharges being a reasonable excuse appeal as defined by rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended coming on for hearing this day

AND UPON HEARING Mr R Morrison – auditor of the appellant company, Mrs L Stockman, accounts manager and Mr N Graven, financial contractor for the appellant and Mr R Marsell for the Respondents

AND THIS TRIBUNAL having heard this appeal and having announced its decision

AND THE parties present at the hearing by their said representatives stating pursuant to Rule 30(8) of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended that they do not require the said decision to be recorded in a written document in accordance with Rule 30(1) of the said Rules

THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT the appeal for the period 1/3/01–31/5/01 be allowed the appellant having established a reasonable excuse for the late furnishing of the return due to ill health within the staff, combined with staff holidays. Regarding the following periods the Tribunal finds:-

(1) Period 1/12/01-28/02/01 that the appellant company had in fact received the surcharge liability notice dated 12/4/01. The appellant accepted that the company had received the said notice

(2) The appellant falls within the provisions of s.59(2) of the VAT Act 1994 and that at all times material to the periods set out herein a valid surcharge notice applied. The Tribunal finds that as the balance of probabilities that the appellant company had received the surcharge liability notice and surcharge liability notice extensions referred to in the Trial Bundle. Accordingly the Tribunals finds:-

(a) for the period 1/6/01 - 31/8/01 the appellants are liable for a penalty at a rate of 2% being a figure of £783.96

(b) for the period 1/9/01 – 30/11/01 the appellants are liable for a penalty at a rate of 5% being a figure of £1,623.14

(c) for the period 1/12/01 – 28/2/02 the appellants are liable for a penalty of 10% being a figure of £6,195.48

(d) for the period 1/3/02 – 31/5/02 the appellants are liable for a penalty at a rate of 15% being a figure of £4,827.50

2

The Tribunal so concluded having given careful consideration to all the evidence both oral and written and were mindful in particular of the evidence of Ms Stockman, that at the relevant periods the company was under considerable pressure, and there was only one member of staff to deal with the demands of the developing company and that the V.A.T. was paid "when she was in a position to do the return and the funds were available to pay the V.A.T. The Tribunal finds that on the balance of probabilities that the company did receive the notices in question but the demands the company were under were such that the company did not pay due regard to same

AND THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT this appeal is both allowed in part and dismissed in part

AND that there is to be no direction as to costs

MARGARET ANN DINSMORE

Chairman

Release Date:

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2003