UT/2019/000009 - [2024] UKUT 00176 (TCC)

Under this ground, which Judge Richards (as he then was) articulated for Mr Ali, having considered Mr Ali’s grounds on the papers, it is argued that the FTT erred in failing to conclude that an assessment for some or all of the excise duty could only lawfully be made against The Price 30, irrespective of whether HMRC considered that they would be able to recover excise duty from The Price 30. In other words, the FTT ought to have held that the assessment against Mr Ali could not stand because the only lawful assessment that could be made was against The Price 30. It did not matter if HMRC considered they would be unable to recover excise duty from The Price 30. An arguable error of law was said to arise in the light of the fact the FTT had not referred to the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Davison and the particular paragraphs we have summarised above (see [8]) (which made the point that HMRC were obliged to assess at the earliest duty point and that, if they had not, an assessment made in relation to a later duty point could be challenged before the FTT).