Sanjay Ahya v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 October 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1232 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This case concerns Mr Sanjay Ahya’s application for permission to appeal out of time against HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for 2005/06–2022/23 totaling £75,055.12. The First-tier Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland approach, found delays of 26 and 23 days (measured by date of receipt of Mr Ahya’s letter), rejected his inconsistent and largely unsupported explanations for delay, and concluded the substantive case was not obviously strong. Balancing the factors, the Tribunal refused permission to appeal out of time. The decision records the right to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The Tribunal treated the date of receipt by HMRC (not the date on the letter) as determinative of the length of delay where statute requires receipt, and applied the Martland three-stage test, holding that inconsistent and unsupported explanations for delay—especially where the substantive appeal is not clearly strong— weigh against granting permission to appeal out of time.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment contains observations that filing tax returns is not equivalent to giving written notice of appeal and does not meet statutory appeal requirements; that a mistaken belief about procedural steps might sometimes justify a short delay but requires credible evidence; and that decision-makers should consider HMRC guidance and seek clarification of vague grounds, though reliance on guidance does not excuse failure to appeal.
Warning
The transcript contains some repetition, typographical errors and duplicated passages which required consolidation for summary. Notes show some repetition, typographical errors and duplicated passages in the transcript that were consolidated; they may be incomplete.