Judicial review
Judicial review
In B&M,the UT said this at [153]:
“B & M wish to be satisfied that there are not in fact earlier points in the supply chain where an excise duty point could clearly be established on the evidence, or might be if such an investigation were in their view more vigorously pursued. We would be inclined to agree that it would not be in the interests of justice that HMRC should simply be able to sit back and say that the burden is on the taxpayer to provide the evidence to displace its liability, when the evidence that HMRC do actually have is in fact sufficient to demonstrate, objectively, that an earlier excise duty point could be established. We are in no position, however, to say whether that is the position in the present case, and any concerns of that nature would anyway have to be pursued through the medium of judicial review.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- The law
- Liability to excise duty
- The burden of proof
- Judicial review
- Disclosure
- The Application
- Mr Thornton’s submissions on behalf of UWG
- Mr Mciver’s submissions on behalf of HMRC
- Disclosure was inappropriate in principle?
- UWG failed to carry out appropriate checks?
- Judicial review
- Scope too wide/fishing expedition?
- Disproportionate?
- Particular supplies?
- Not fair and just?
- Flaws in the Application?
- Conclusions
![TC09625 - [2025] UKFTT 01066 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)