[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Openshaw Ltd v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT V19012 (06 April 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19012.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19012

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

19012

DEFAULT SURCHARGE — no-one appearing — failure to transmit VAT electronically — new member of staff pressed wrong buttons — reliance on third party no reasonable excuse — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

OPENSHAW LIMITED Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: David S Porter (Chairman)

Sitting in public in Manchester on 23 March 2005

No one appearing for the Appellant

Richard Mansell of counsel instructed the Solicitor's office of HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION
1. Openshaw Limited (the Appellant) appeals against a surcharge for the period 01.06 04 to 31.08.04 in the sum of £9938.00 arising from the failure of the new cashier to press the correct buttons on the computer to send the funds electronically to the Commissioners.
2. Richard Mansell of counsel instructed by H M Customs and Excise appeared for the Respondents and produced a bundle of documents for the Tribunal. As no one appeared for the Appellant, this Tribunal determined to proceed under rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Rules 1986 (as amended).
3. I found the following facts. The Appellant received an assessment for surcharge for the period 09/04 on 20 October 2004 in the sum of £9,938. On 10 December 2004 the Appellant appealed against the surcharge and in a note attached to the notice of appeal stated: -

"I belief it harsh to penalise for the payment being one day late. This was not intentional but is due to staff changes – we have a new cashier who believed the payment had been sent on 7^th, but in fact, the wrong sequence of buttons had been pressed and it had not in fact gone. This was purely down to inexperience in making electronic payments. We noticed it had not gone the following day, and immediately sent it on the 8^th"

4. Mr Mansell submitted that there was no reasonable excuse. The Appellant should have ensured that adequate training has been given to the cashier. Further by virtue of section 77(1)(i)(6) … reliance on a third party is not acceptable as a reasonable excuse.
5. I have considered the evidence and find that there is no reasonable excuse and I dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant cannot rely on a third party.
6. As the Respondents requested no costs none are awarded.

DAVID S PORTER

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 6 April 2005

MAN/04/0784