Judicial review
Judicial review
In Mr Mciver’s submission, UWG ought instead to have taken steps, at the time it was issued with the assessments, to challenge HMRC’s investigation by way of judicial review. He drew attention to the tight timescale for such a challenge, and said it was “not proper” for UWG now to use the disclosure process “to fill that gap”.
Mr Thornton confirmed that UWG were not seeking to challenge HMRC’s investigation process. He added, entirely correctly, that it was clear from Hughes and Tideswell that judicial review was not the only option, and that the recipient of a duty assessment could ask for disclosure.
- 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)