Tajinder Singh Pawar v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 25 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 81 (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 is an application for permission to notify a late appeal against a personal liability notice (PLN) dated 5 October 2017 making the appellant personally liable for £874,238 of penalties imposed on First Stop Wholesale Ltd. The appellant gave notice of appeal some 38 months after the statutory 30‑day appeal period and relied principally on advisers and alleged provisional agreement with HMRC to explain the delay. Applying the Denton/Martland three‑stage test the Tribunal found the delay unjustified, that the adviser‑reliance did not constitute a good reason in the absence of cogent evidence, refused permission for the late appeal and dismissed the substantive 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: medium
An appellant’s reliance on advisers who fail to advise on statutory appeal deadlines will not, without cogent supporting evidence, normally constitute a good reason to excuse substantial delay; where a review conclusion letter clearly informs the recipient of a 30‑day right of appeal, subsequent inaction or mere hopes of an informal resolution without demonstrable, continuing steps to progress the matter will not ordinarily justify granting permission for a late appeal.
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 noted that evidence of provisional agreements or constructive engagement with HMRC may be relevant to the question of delay and prejudice, but such matters will not excuse failure to comply with clear appeal deadlines unless there is demonstrable conduct showing the parties took concrete steps to progress the agreed resolution. The decision also emphasised the competing public interests in observing statutory time limits and in HMRC collecting only monies properly due.