[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 >> Global Marketing (WM) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V20377 (25 September 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2007/V20377.html Cite as: [2007] UKVAT V20377

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

20377

Appeal dismissed in the absence of the Appellant on the grounds of the Appellant's failure to comply with the direction of the tribunal — rules 19(4) and 26(2) VAT Tribunals Rules 1986

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

GLOBAL MARKETING (WM) LTD Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: John Walters QC (Chairman)

Marjorie Kostick BA FCA CTA

Sitting in public in Birmingham on 11 September 2007

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

V Mendalia, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor and General Counsel for HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007

DECISION

1. We decided to proceed to consider the appeal in the absence of the Appellant pursuant to rule 26(2) of the VAT Tribunals Rules 1986 ("the Tribunals Rules").
2. This appeal is against the decision of the Respondent Commissioners given in a letter dated 19 June 2006 and confirmed in a letter dated 13 July 2006 to cancel the Appellant's VAT registration with effect from 13 July 2006.
3. It appears from the Notice of Appeal dated 31 August 2006 that the Appellant disputed the decision because it contended that it was (or remained) a taxable person making taxable supplies and that it had the intention to make taxable supplies.
4. However, beyond filing the Notice of Appeal the Appellant has done nothing to prosecute its appeal.
5. At a pre-hearing review on 26 April 2007 the Tribunal (Chairman: Mr Michael Johnson) directed, among other things, that the Appellant should serve its list of documents by 4 pm on 11 May 2007 and the statements of those witnesses on whom it is intended to rely by the same time and date.
6. Those Directions (and others) have not been complied with by the Appellant.
7. The Respondent Commissioners, on the other hand, have served a statement of case and the witness statements of two officers (Mr Craddock and Ms Degg). Mr Carddock's statement introduces 20 exhibits.
8. Mr Mandalia, before us, requested that the Tribunal should dismiss the appeal on the grounds of the Appellant's failure to comply with the Directions of the Tribunal pursuant to rule 19(4) of the Rules.
9. Having considered the matter in particular the reasons given by the Customs' witnesses for the decision to cancel the Appellant's VAT registration and the fact that the Appellant has done nothing to substantiate its case beyond making the assertion referred to above in its Notice of Appeal, we decided to dismiss the appeal and announced our decision accordingly.
10. Mr Mandalia then made an application for costs as adumbrated in paragraph 22 of the Commissioners' statement of case.
11. We direct that the Appellant shall pay to the Commissioners within 28 days of the release date of this Decision the sum of £2,079.75, on account of the Commissioners' costs incidental to and consequent upon the appeal. We were informed that sum covered 20 hours of solicitor's time and seven hours of counsel's time and included the relative VAT due.
12. After the hearing, we were shown a letter faxed through the same morning to the Respondents by Messrs Dass for the Appellant in terms confirming that the Appellant would not be proceeding with his appeal.
13. At the hearing, we had been told simply that that there had been a communication to the intent that the Appellant was not going to be represented at the hearing before us.
14. The information that the Appellant had in fact withdrawn the appeal does not affect our decision either in relation to the dismissal of the appeal or in relation to costs. We were given no reason why the Appellant's decision to withdraw the appeal had been communicated so late in the day, a fact that has obviously increased costs and unnecessarily inconvenienced both the Respondents and the Tribunal.
15. Appeal dismissed and payment on account of costs directed accordingly.

JOHN WALTERS QC

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 25 September 2007

MAN/06/0647