Dhalomal Kishore (t/a Movil 2000) V The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 1 July 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 987 (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

This appeal concerned an application for permission to bring a substantially late appeal against HMRC misdeclaration VAT penalties dated 3 August 2017 (periods 03/06 and 06/06, the latter later reduced by letter of 8 December 2022). The First-tier Tribunal applied the Martland three-stage approach, found the delay serious and unjustified, held the December 2022 letter did not create a new appealable decision restarting the time limit, and refused permission to admit the late 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

When considering admission of a late appeal under s83G VATA the tribunal should apply the Martland three-stage approach (assess length of delay; reasons for default; and evaluate all circumstances including prejudice and public interest in finality). A communication that merely varies the quantum of an earlier notified penalty does not necessarily constitute a fresh appealable decision restarting the statutory time limit where it does not purport to impose a new penalty liability.

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 decision emphasises the public interest in finality and respect for statutory time limits as important factors in the balancing exercise under Martland, and notes that issue estoppel and abuse of process are relevant considerations against admitting late appeals where the same matters were previously litigated and an earlier appeal was withdrawn.