UT/2024/000087 - [2025] UKUT 00287 (TCC)

Mr Chacko argued that the FTT proceeded on the basis at [72] that if they found deliberate error then the VAT assessments were automatically made in time. The FTT therefore erred, in relation to each VAT assessment, by failing to deal with the question whether s 73(6) was satisfied. This was in fact an issue before the FTT dealt with in the Respondents’ statement of case. This is a question that therefore should have been dealt with at first instance. The outcome is not certain. The FTT held that HMRC’s conclusion that cash receipts were being suppressed followed their visits to the premises (the final one on 27 July 2017) which is more than 12 months before the assessments were made on 26 November 2018. Jonathan Beard, in his witness statement admitted that the assessments had been made more than 12 months after obtaining the relevant information but that this was because HMRC were hoping that the Appellant would provide further information. The question whether the meetings and correspondence between the Appellant and HMRC in the course of 2018 should extend time for these purposes is a difficult one that could be decided either way - Rasul v HMRC [2017] UKUT. Mr Chacko argued that the issue of fairness in respect of a failure to put issues to a witness is a matter for the appeal not for the permission threshold stage.