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.
For the VAT period 03/12, the due date for the submission of the VAT return and the payment of VAT was 30 April 2012, extended to 7 May 2012, when (as in Intramed�s case) VAT is paid by electronic transfer to HMRC.
Intramed�s VAT return for the VAT period 03/12 was received by HMRC on 3 May 2012, but the payment of the VAT due was received by HMRC on 8 May, 2012, one day late.
�Mr Patani made the point that he had written to HMRC on 31 December 2012 asking for repayment of surcharges already paid (and remitted by HMRC) amounting to �14,016.86.� He had asked that this amount be repaid with interest.� It had been repaid, but without interest, and Mr Patani complained about the unfairness of being penalised for making a VAT payment one day late, while HMRC suffered no penalty for delaying repayments due to Intramed. (The repayment was in fact received on 10 January 2013.)
We accept the evidence given, but regret that it does not establish that Intramed had a reasonable excuse for the late payment of VAT for the VAT period 03/12, for relevant purposes.� Intramed was, we find, sufficiently on notice that the payment needed to be received by HMRC on or before 4 May 2012 and the reasons given for the delay in making the payment are not sufficient to establish a reasonable excuse.
For that reason, as we announced at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal.
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.