Mr Arash Razaie t/a Foodline Delivery Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 27 November 2009

Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 327 (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 a sole trader who claimed input VAT on purchases from a supplier whose invoices quoted a VAT number that did not belong to them and who was not VAT-registered; payments went to a third party and there was no delivery or corroborating supplier documentation. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence (including a supplier‑supplied EUROPA validation print produced after trading and testimony) unreliable and held there was no persuasive evidence the supplies occurred. It concluded HMRC reasonably exercised its discretion under regulation 29(2) to refuse admission of alternative evidence and dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded.

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 a taxpayer concedes that VAT invoices are materially invalid, entitlement to input tax requires satisfactory alternative evidence that the underlying supplies actually took place; absence of such evidence permits HMRC reasonably to refuse relief under regulation 29(2). Factors such as payments to a third party, lack of delivery notes or other corroboration, failure to carry out due diligence, and reliance on supplier‑provided validation materially weaken a claimant’s case.

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

A EUROPA VAT‑number validation print supplied by the supplier and obtained after the trading period may have little weight in proving the supplier’s VAT status or bona fides. The Tribunal also noted HMRC guidance and the Statement of Practice on input tax without a valid invoice put traders on notice to verify suppliers, though these points were not essential to the decision.

Warning

quality:contains_crown_copyright