In CC&C v HMRC [2014] EWCA Civ 1653 (19 December 2014) the Court of Appeal found that it had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief against the deregistration of a trader in duty suspended goods.
The appeal related to the regime which permits wholesale trading in alcoholic drinks without liability for excise duty ‘duty suspended goods’.
CC&C was approved as a registered trader in duty suspended goods in 2004. However HMRC revoked its registration with immediate effect on the ground that CC&C had failed to exercise proper due diligence.
CC&C therefore appealed under FA 1994 s 16 which gives rights to persons affected by ‘relevant decisions’. The court noted that on appeal the FTT can only exercise its powers where the decision is one which could not reasonably have been arrived at. The court also observed that the FTT...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In CC&C v HMRC [2014] EWCA Civ 1653 (19 December 2014) the Court of Appeal found that it had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief against the deregistration of a trader in duty suspended goods.
The appeal related to the regime which permits wholesale trading in alcoholic drinks without liability for excise duty ‘duty suspended goods’.
CC&C was approved as a registered trader in duty suspended goods in 2004. However HMRC revoked its registration with immediate effect on the ground that CC&C had failed to exercise proper due diligence.
CC&C therefore appealed under FA 1994 s 16 which gives rights to persons affected by ‘relevant decisions’. The court noted that on appeal the FTT can only exercise its powers where the decision is one which could not reasonably have been arrived at. The court also observed that the FTT...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
