Godavari Consultancy Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 7 February 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 120 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Godavari Consultancy Services Ltd appealed a 15% VAT default surcharge of £946.34 for period 10/21, disputing whether payment was made by the due date (7 December 2021). The Tribunal found HMRC's ledger showed the payment was credited on 8 December 2021, held there was no reasonable excuse for late payment, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the surcharge.

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 an amount as outstanding for an accounting period if unpaid by the last day for making the return (s59(6) VATA 1994) and relied on documentary ledger evidence of the date funds were credited to determine whether payment met the due date; where the ledger showed credit on 8 December, the payment was late and surcharge liability attached.

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: low

The decision noted that internal HMRC call notes that do not record any promise to cancel a surcharge undermine an appellant's claim of such assurances, and observed that Faster Payments Service transfers are typically quick—points relied on when assessing the plausibility of transfer timing, but not essential to the core legal holding.

Warning

Chunk contains duplicated passages and formatting/noise; some text repeats. Chunk contains duplicated passages and some formatting/noise; notes may be incomplete.