Sameer Khan v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 884 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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: high
This case concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear VAT appeals where the appellant had not filed the relevant VAT returns before lodging notices of appeal. The Tribunal held that section 83(1)(p)(i) VATA permits an appeal only in respect of periods for which a return has been made, so it lacked jurisdiction and struck out the appeals (the 04/20 assessment was separately struck out because it had been withdrawn). The Tribunal noted that filing the missing returns after the notice of appeal does not retrospectively validate the appeals; any challenge after filing would require permission to appeal late.
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: high
The Tribunal’s ratio is that a statutory right of appeal under section 83(1)(p)(i) VATA exists only for periods for which the appellant has made a VAT return; absence of a return means the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the assessment for that period. Administrative encouragement or assistance from HMRC in relation to late returns does not cure the jurisdictional defect.
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 Tribunal observed an apparent inconsistency between HMRC’s strict jurisdictional position and its prior practice of assisting late filing and queried whether any process exists to cure the defect other than bringing a fresh, potentially time‑barred appeal. The Tribunal also recorded HMRC’s indication they would not be minded to oppose an application for permission to appeal late if missing returns were filed within 30 days, but treated that as relevant background rather than determinative.