CL-2018-000297, CL-2018-000404, CL-2018-000590, - [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)

The premise of that submission – contemporaneous familiarity with the reclaim documents – is correct, except as regards the language of the Goal and Syntax cover letters, if that language made a difference. However, I do not accept the conclusion for which SKAT contends. It is not so obvious that any of the particular representations alleged by SKAT was made, at least in essence, by the tax reclaim documents for it to be said that Mr Shah, if he had given the point any thought, cannot have failed to see it. Further, as the way I have just expressed that indicates, SKAT’s bald submission assumes, whereas it would require SKAT to prove, that Mr Shah did give thought at the time to what the tax reclaims would convey to SKAT by way of representation, i.e. as a statement of fact or law made to SKAT on which SKAT would be likely to consider itself entitled to rely as a positive assertion by the Tax Agent that what was stated was true.