UT/2022/000157 - [2024] UKUT 00346 (TCC)

Whilst respecting them as separate grounds, it is convenient to address these two grounds of appeal together. There are various reasons for this: the grounds are pleaded in the alternative; both of the grounds relate to the section of the FTT Decision headed “Quantum”; and both grounds of appeal relate to the same legislation and engage principles derived from the same authorities.

We should record at the outset that these grounds of appeal relate only to the appeal against the DLN and concern only the quantum of the underlying assessment made under section 73 VATA against SA, against which SA did not appeal. As we have described above, in the course of argument, Mr Webster KC acknowledged that the burden of proof on the issue of the quantum of the assessment fell on the taxpayer in the context of a penalty appeal made under section 60 and section 61 VATA. That conclusion is consistent with the analysis in the judgment of Carnwath LJ in Khan and with our analysis above.

For the reasons that we have given above, the appeals against the other assessments and liability notices succeeded before the FTT on the place of supply issue, and so the FTT did not need to address the application of the “best judgment” requirement to the assessments that underlie the registration penalty issued to Global or the various PLN’s issued to Mr Malde.