In Zipvit v HMRC [2022] UKSC 12 (11 May 2022) the Supreme Court had previously made a reference to the CJEU as to whether a trader could recover VAT on supplies made to it where the trader the supplier and HMRC had all mistakenly treated those supplies as exempt. The CJEU’s judgment was delivered in January 2022 ruling that the conditions for VAT recovery were not met because the VAT in question had not been ‘due or paid’. In light of this the Supreme Court has dismissed the trader’s appeal.
Zipvit supplies vitamins and minerals by post. In the periods under dispute (between 2006 and 2010) the Royal Mail supplied it with postal services and did not charge any VAT. The UK’s domestic law implemented article 132 of the VAT Directive which provided that...
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 Zipvit v HMRC [2022] UKSC 12 (11 May 2022) the Supreme Court had previously made a reference to the CJEU as to whether a trader could recover VAT on supplies made to it where the trader the supplier and HMRC had all mistakenly treated those supplies as exempt. The CJEU’s judgment was delivered in January 2022 ruling that the conditions for VAT recovery were not met because the VAT in question had not been ‘due or paid’. In light of this the Supreme Court has dismissed the trader’s appeal.
Zipvit supplies vitamins and minerals by post. In the periods under dispute (between 2006 and 2010) the Royal Mail supplied it with postal services and did not charge any VAT. The UK’s domestic law implemented article 132 of the VAT Directive which provided that...
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: