[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 >> Rushworth & Partners Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18727 (16 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18727.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18727

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

VALUE ADDED TAX — Accountants — assessment — Section 73 VATA 1994 — assessment amended and reduced following correspondence — final assessment withdrawn by Commissioners — Appellant failed to respond to request to withdraw appeal — no remaining appealable matter — appeal dismissd

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

RUSHWORTH & PARTNERS LTD Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Mr I E Vellins (Chairman)

Mrs G Pratt (Member)

Sitting in public in York on 22 July 2004

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Mr R Mansell, of the Solicitor's office of HM Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
2. In this appeal the Appellant, Rushworth & Partners Ltd, carried on business as accountants from premises in Sherbourn In Elmet, Leeds. They appealed against the decision of the Respondents, the Customs & Excise Commissioners, who, on 26 July 2002, assessed the Appellant pursuant to Section 73 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 in the sum of £14,833 representing VAT arrears for the period from 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2002.
3. At the hearing of this appeal at York on 22 July 2004 there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Appellant. At the hearing the Respondents were represented by Mr R Mansell of their Solicitor's Office.
4. This tribunal determined to proceed with the appeal in the absence of the Appellant under rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 (as amended).
5. The background to this appeal is as follows. The Appellant had been registered for VAT with effect from 15 January 1999. An officer of the Respondents visited the Appellant in May 2002 and inspected the Appellant's VAT records and accounts. It appeared to the Commissioners that the returns rendered by the Appellant were incomplete or incorrect in the output tax was under-declared and input tax was over-claimed. The Commissioners considered that the Appellant had claimed input tax without the necessary evidence required by law, and there were discrepancies between the Appellant's annual accounts and the VAT returns. The Appellant had made no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies and the Commissioners issued the original assessment dated 26 July 2002.
6. The Appellant appealed on 3 January 2003.
7. Correspondence then ensued between the parties in order to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. The Commissioners issued various amended assessments, in October 2002, March 2003 and April 2003, reducing the original assessments.
8. Finally there was still a sum of £1,944 in dispute. On 29 April 2003 the Commissioners notified the Appellant that they were issuing a new assessment against the Appellant in the sum of £1,944. The Appellant appealed against that new assessment, and that appeal is proceeding in this tribunal under appeal number MAN/2004/0036.
9. On 14 November 2003 the Respondents wrote to the Appellant with regard to the appeal against the original assessments, notifying the Appellant that the Commissioners were withdrawing the original assessments in full. The Appellant's appeal against the new assessment in the sum of £1,944 is still proceeding in this tribunal under reference MAN/2004/0036.
10. On 14 November 2003 the Respondents wrote to the Appellant asking him to withdraw his appeal against the original assessments. The Appellant has failed to respond to this. On 9 December 2003 the Respondents again wrote to the Appellant pointing out that the original assessments having been withdrawn no appealable issue remained. The Respondents again wrote to the Appellant in late December 2003 inviting the Appellant to withdraw this appeal. The Appellant has failed to respond to the Commissioners or to the tribunal.
11. The appeal was set down for hearing. The Appellant has not attended at the hearing.
12. Mr Mansell submitted at the hearing on behalf of the Commissioners that the appeal should be dismissed as there remained no appealable assessment. The Commissioners had withdrawn the assessments. He requested that an order for costs in the sum of £250 should be made against the Appellant, for the wasted costs in connection with the Respondents' attendance at the hearing of this appeal which would have been unnecessary had the Appellant withdrawn his appeal as requested.
13. We accept the submissions of the representative of the Respondents. We find that the Respondents have withdrawn all the assessments made by the Respondents against the Appellant dated 26 July 2002. Accordingly there is no appealable decision still remaining. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal of the Appellant.
14. The Appellant has failed to withdraw this appeal, when requested to do so by the Respondents, following the withdrawal of the assessments. The result of this failure is that the appeal has been set down for hearing and costs have been incurred by the Respondents in attending at the hearing of this appeal. We order that the Appellant do pay the Respondents' costs of £250.
15. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal and order that the costs of this appeal assessed at £250 shall be paid by the Appellant to the Respondents.

MR I E VELLINS

CHAIRMAN

Release Date: 16 August 2004

MAN/03/0082