Stark Building Materials (UK) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 15 January 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 123 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

Stark Building Materials sought repayment of £931,152.73 excise duty on creosote imports under s 9(4) HODA, arguing entitlement despite approval as an "approved person" being granted after the relevant imports. The Tribunal held that s 9(4) must be read in the context of s 9(1) and repayment is only available where the Commissioners would have been authorised under s 9(1) to permit duty-free delivery. Because the claimant was not an approved person at or before importation, the s 9(4) claims were dismissed.

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

The operative ratio is that s 9(4) is parasitic on s 9(1): retrospective repayment requires that, at the time of importation (when the primary charge arose), the Commissioners would have been authorised under s 9(1) to permit delivery without duty, which in turn requires the recipient to have been an approved person at or before importation. Approval is therefore a condition precedent to relief under s 9.

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 (obiter) that the Court of Appeal decision in British Steel was not dispositive on the timing question and contains passages that do not clearly favour either party, and that administrative delay by HMRC in granting approval, while possibly disadvantageous to taxpayers, does not alter the statutory construction and is not a remedy the Tribunal can grant.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML