Mauheed Johngir & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 March 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 274 (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 appeal concerned HMRC assessments and 50/50 personal liability notices issued to two directors after their insolvent company’s VAT returns were found inaccurate from till, card and other data and missing records. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC’s best-judgment assessments were reasonable, found the directors had deliberately caused the inaccuracies (suppression of cash sales, incorrect zero‑rating and overstated input tax), upheld the personal liability notices (reduced post-ADR), and dismissed the appeal. Each appellant was held liable for £363,687.49; parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.
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
Where required records are missing but available material (such as till and card data and related-business comparisons) reasonably indicates VAT return inaccuracies, HMRC may assess to the best of its judgment and those assessments will stand unless displaced on the balance of probabilities by the taxpayer. Allegations that inaccuracies were deliberate need only be pleaded with sufficient concise primary facts to support the inference; fuller particularisation may not be required at the Statement of Case stage where evidential exchange follows.
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 acquiring new tills after an investigation is notified does not by itself preclude an earlier finding of sales suppression, and that continued suppression despite awareness of investigation may be indicative of deliberate concealment. It also commented that in fraud-type allegations tribunals should be "generous" in assessing the sufficiency of pleadings given potential secrecy by defendants.