Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Sitting in public at Taylor House, 88 Rosebery Avenue, London EC1R 4QU on 13 April, 2018
Having heard Mr I Bridge for the Appellant and Mr J Benson QC for the Respondents
(1) In relation to the Appellant�s appeals against the denial of deductions of input tax on the grounds of an alleged contravention of Regulation 14(1) of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (1995/2518) (�Regulation 14(1)) (hereinafter referred to as the �Invalid Invoice Claims�), the Respondents are barred from taking further part in the proceedings and the appeals are summarily determined in favour of the Appellant.
(2) In relation to the Appellant�s appeals against the assessments to VAT and adjustments to the VAT due from the Appellant on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of export and that the conditions for zero-rating the supplies of the relevant goods had not been satisfied (hereinafter referred to as the �Export Claims�), the Appellant�s application for the Respondents to be barred from taking further part in the proceedings and for the appeals to be summarily determined in favour of the Appellant is dismissed.
(3) The directions which follow at (4) to (13) below, both inclusive, relate solely to the appeals in relation to the Export Claims and replace all earlier directions in respect of those appeals apart from the direction set out at (2) above.� References in those directions to �the appeals� are to the appeals in relation to the Export Claims.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.