Bharat Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 March 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 296 (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 First-tier Tribunal considered an application for permission to notify late appeals against ten VAT best‑judgement assessments (periods June 2012–Dec 2015; assessments issued June–Oct 2016) and income tax penalty assessments for 2012–2017. Applying the Martland three‑stage approach, the Tribunal found the VAT appeals were seriously out of time, the appellant's explanations (notably non‑receipt) were weak, and on balance the assessment letters were likely sent; permission to appeal late against the VAT and income tax penalty assessments was refused, the request to add three further VAT assessments was refused, and the proceedings were struck out.
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 applied the Martland three‑stage test for extensions of time—(1) length of delay, (2) reasons for delay, and (3) an overall evaluation of all circumstances including prejudice and case strength—and required the appellant to make a persuasive explanation for delay; assertions of non‑receipt are less persuasive where there is a longstanding history of correspondence, correct addressing, and prior warnings of assessments.
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 noted that lack of direct proof of posting by HMRC weakens the presumption of service but does not preclude a finding that letters were likely sent where other indicia support correspondence; it also observed that the tribunal should avoid conducting a mini‑trial on the merits when deciding permission to extend time, although obvious strengths or weaknesses of the case may be considered.