Heaven Dry Cleaners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 781 (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 Heaven Dry Cleaners Ltd (HDCL) challenging HMRC review conclusions: a CT review conclusion dated 16 December 2019 and a VAT review conclusion dated 26 August 2021, and seeking permission for late appeals. The FTT refused permission to bring a late appeal against the CT review conclusion but admitted HDCL's appeal against the VAT registration decision (the review had not been concluded earlier), and struck out HDCL's appeal against the VAT assessment amount for lack of tribunal jurisdiction because HDCL had made no VAT returns.
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
Where an appellant (or their agent) accepts an HMRC offer of review and HMRC has not notified conclusions within the statutory timeframe, the review process can suspend the running of the appeal period so that no late appeal is required until the review conclusion is issued; and the statutory right of appeal against VAT assessments under the cited provision applies only to assessments for periods for which the appellant has made a return, so where no returns were made the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the assessment amount.
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 that it would be oppressive and unfair to enforce an assessment that the appellant cannot appeal against while the appellant is pursuing an appeal against the underlying registration decision; and it noted that the rebuttable presumption of postal delivery is only evidential and cannot be relied on without HMRC witness evidence of posting/receipt.