Rich Couture Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 November 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 1077 (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 concerns HMRC’s denial of VAT input tax to four Nebhwani‑controlled companies (Saisco, Rich Couture/RC, Rich Luxe/RL, Ideal Silks/IS) after an investigation found circular trading, missing traders and defective invoicing/shipping. The Tribunal accepted HMRC’s evidence that many suppliers (notably Boski, Elena, HWings, Kos, Abimode, Andivia, Fashion Moda, No Names) caused tax loss or issued fraudulent invoices, dismissed the appeals of Saisco, RC and RL (all their claimed input tax denied) and allowed IS’s appeal only in part. The Tribunal applied “no supply”, section 26A (payment within six months), Kittel and Fini tests, and found HMRC had satisfied extended‑time deliberate‑claim allegations in respect of Boski invoices.
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’s decision turns on the finding that where documentary, visit and corroborative evidence show suppliers were missing traders or invoices were fraudulent and the claimant fails to prove that supplies actually occurred or that suppliers were paid, input tax can be denied; HMRC must prove deliberate/abusive overclaim to invoke extended time limits, while appellants bear the burden to show supply/payment when contested. This allocation of burdens and the application of no‑supply, s.26A, Kittel and Fini principles underpinned the outcome.
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 expressed procedural observations about remote participation and evidence: permission for witnesses to give evidence from abroad is constrained, remote participation by litigants in person may blur evidence and submissions, and SCAC (foreign authority) reports and third‑party statements can be admissible but require careful weighting and explicit cross‑referencing to primary documents.