[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 >> Jarvis (t/a Just Bikes) v HM Revenue & Customs [2005] UKVAT V19268 (21 September 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19268.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19268

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

 


Rule 26(2)

19268

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: MAN/05/0065

PETER RONALD JARVIS – JUST BIKES Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal Chairman: Michael Tildesley OBE

Sitting in public in Birmingham on the 22 August 2005

DIRECTION

under Rule 30(8)

This appeal against a decision of the Respondents with respect to a surcharge assessments dated 11.06.03, 12.09.03, 15.12.03 in the total sum of £761.07 and 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 and Richard Mansell instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents and no one appearing for the Appellant

And this tribunal having heard this appeal under rule 26(2) of the said Rules and having announced its decision

And the Respondents by their said representative stating pursuant to the rule 30(8) of the said Rules 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 Appellant does not have a reasonable excuse for the defaults which resulted in the Respondents making the assessments under appeal. The Appellant's explanations for not paying the VAT due on time were not supported by documentary evidence, which was requested on at least two occasions by the Respondents. The explanations either did not relate to the period in dispute or in law cannot amount to a reasonable excuse. This tribunal refused the Appellant's application for an adjournment of the appeal hearing as set out in the letter from Dains Chartered Accountants dated 19 August 2003 because:

1. The Appellant has already had two previous adjournments of the appeal hearing
2. The Appellant was advised by tribunal letter dated 23 May 2005 that he should write within 14 days from receipt if he wished to alter the hearing date of 22 August 2005. His request for adjournment was dated 19 August 2005, nearly two months after the 23 May 2005 letter.
3. The Appellant put forward no compelling reason why he was unable to attend the hearing on 22 August 2005. The tribunal was not impressed with his explanation that he was away from Saturday, 20 August 2005.
4. The tribunal formed the view that the Appellant has been guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay with the prosecution of his appeal which was demonstrated by the Appellant's failure to provide the information requested by the Respondents to support his grounds of appeal and by the Appellant's three requests to adjourn the hearing of the appeal.

And this tribunal directs that this appeal is dismissed and that there is to be no direction as to costs

MICHAEL TILDESLEY CHAIRMAN Release Date: 2 September 2005 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005