TC09515 - [2025] UKFTT 00525 (TC)

It was my view that the appellant had been notified of the hearing and certainly reasonable steps have been taken by the tribunal to notify it of the hearing. It was also in the interests of justice to hear the application in the company’s absence. The company has not engaged in these proceedings, and it would not be fair and just for a consideration of the application to be postponed simply because the company has not deigned to attend. In any event, the documents speak for themselves and there is little, in the absence of any formal application for reinstatement, that the company could tell me which would influence my consideration of the application. Finally, as set out above, once a respondent has been barred from taking part in proceedings, then I need not consider any response or other submissions made by the respondent and can summarily determine the issues against that respondent, subject, of course, to the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly.

I therefore proceeded with the hearing and considered HMRC’s submissions on the application.

The company was automatically barred from further participation in these proceedings at 5.01 pm on 24 September 2024 as it had failed to comply with the Unless Order.

In these circumstances, as mentioned above, I can summarily determine the issue against the company. I have no hesitation in doing so and in allowing the application. It is clear to me that the company has failed to comply with the request for information and the application has been properly made out. The company is liable to a penalty of £300 for failure to comply with the provisions of section 242 ITA.