In Maliha Group Ltd v HMRC (TC00887 – 17 January) a company (M) registered for VAT with effect from 1 May 2007. In its first return it reclaimed input tax in respect of supplies allegedly made by three different suppliers none of which had accounted for VAT. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that there was no evidence that the supplies had actually taken place and that M had failed to produce the evidence required by a direction under VAT Regulations SI 1995/2518 reg 29(2). M appealed. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed the appeal with regard to two of the three suppliers finding that the purported supplies ‘never took place’. However the Tribunal allowed the appeal with regard to the supplies made by the other supplier (B) finding that these supplies had taken...
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 Maliha Group Ltd v HMRC (TC00887 – 17 January) a company (M) registered for VAT with effect from 1 May 2007. In its first return it reclaimed input tax in respect of supplies allegedly made by three different suppliers none of which had accounted for VAT. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that there was no evidence that the supplies had actually taken place and that M had failed to produce the evidence required by a direction under VAT Regulations SI 1995/2518 reg 29(2). M appealed. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed the appeal with regard to two of the three suppliers finding that the purported supplies ‘never took place’. However the Tribunal allowed the appeal with regard to the supplies made by the other supplier (B) finding that these supplies had taken...
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:
