Anandpreet Powar v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 December 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1536 (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 HMRC's application to strike out Mr Powar's appeal against a personal liability notice (PLN) under rule 8(3)(c) on the ground that his amended grounds had no realistic prospect of success. The Tribunal relied on prior factual findings in a 17 May 2024 VAT decision (that Mr Powar knew or more likely than not knew of transactions connected to fraudulent VAT evasion), found the PLN correctly calculated under Schedule 41, and allowed HMRC’s strike-out application, concluding Mr Powar is liable to pay the PLN.
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 applied the principle that a strike-out under rule 8(3)(c) is appropriate where, on the totality of the evidence before it, the appellant has no realistic prospect of success; it also treated prior factual findings in earlier proceedings between the same parties as capable of precluding relitigation where the new appeal would effectively undermine those findings.
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 indicated (obiter) that pending permission-to-appeal proceedings against a relied-upon decision do not automatically make a strike-out premature, and commented that paragraph 4 of Schedule 41 concerns possession/handling after the excise duty point rather than the knowledge of the person acquiring the goods.
Warning
Chunk contains duplicated passages and some formatting artefacts (e.g. underlining code and repeated text). Notes contain duplicated passages and some formatting artefacts and may be materially incomplete.