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.
VAT default surcharge - Appellant unable to transmit VAT because of bank�s �10,000 limit on a FPS transfer - whether reasonable excuse - no - whether penalty disproportionate - no - Appeal dismissed
Sitting in public at the Magistrates Court, Market Square, Hull on 11 September 2017
Xen Jewellery Design Limited (�the Appellant�) appeals against a VAT default surcharge of �2,022.40, for its failure to submit in respect of its VAT period 12/16, by the due date, payment of VAT due. The surcharge was calculated at 10% of the VAT due of �20,224.00
The point at issue is whether the Appellant has a reasonable excuse for making the late payment.
Prior to the default under appeal the Appellant had previously defaulted on VAT payments in periods in 03/16 when a surcharge liability notice was issued and again in two further periods.
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.