Mobile Export/Shelford IT Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 19, 2009, [2009] EWHC 797 (Ch),[2009] 2 CMLR 46

Reporting Judge: [2009] EWHC 797 (Ch),[2009] 2 CMLR 46

President: Mobile Export/Shelford IT Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs

Linked as:

Extract

Mobile Export/Shelford IT Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 19, 2009, [2009] EWHC 797 (Ch),[2009] 2 CMLR 46

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 797 (Ch)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Claim No CH/2008/APP/0363, CH/2008/APP/0393, CH/2008/APP/0424

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London WC2A 2LL

19th March 2009

Before:

SIR ANDREW PARK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BETWEEN:

MOBILE EXPORT/SHELFORD IT LIMITED

Appellant

-v-

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS

Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Transcript of WordWave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY

Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR MICHAEL PATCHETT-JOYCE appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR JEREMY BENSON QC, MR IAN HUTTON and MR DAVID BEDENHAM appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentSIR ANDREW PARK:

Introduction

1. This judgment relates to two appeals to the High Court from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, which I will call "the Tribunal". Both are appeals against interlocutory decisions of the Tribunal given on issues of a case-management nature which arose in connection with VAT appeals by the two appellant companies. The two companies are associated and there is no need for present purposes to differentiate between them. They had made claims for repayment of large sums of input tax. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) had refused the claims, and the companies appealed to the Tribunal against the refusals. In the case of each appellant company two VAT periods were involved. If I have followed correctly, these companies were treated as having VAT periods of one month's duration rather than three. The two periods in issu...

See the full content of this document