20914

APPEALS – Extension of time – Out of time appeal – No reasons given why extension should be granted – Appellant failed to comply with agreed directions – Application dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

	PAN EURO VENTURES LTD	           Appellant

-	and –

	THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS 	 Respondents

				Tribunal:	SIR STEPHEN OLIVER QC (Chairman)

Sitting in public in London on 6 January 2009

No appearance for the Appellant

Oliver Powell, counsel, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2009

DECISION

1.	Pan Euro Ventures Limited (“PE”) apply for leave to appeal out of time.  The application is contained in their Notice of Appeal.  The decision appealed against, contained in a letter of 29 November 2007, refused relief for input tax in some £33 million.  The Appeal was lodged on 20 May 2008.

2.	HMRC served a Notice on 9 June 2008 objecting to the application for leave to appeal out of time on grounds, among other things, that PE had provided no letter in support of its application and no supporting information or documentation.  PE’s opposed application was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 14 August 2008.

3.	On 11 August a joint application made with the consent of Cowgill VAT Consultants (“Cowgill”) for PE and HMRC applied for the hearing to be vacated on terms of Agreed Directions that PE was “to furnish HMRC with all documents in support of, and evidencing, its application by no later than 30 September 2008”.  HMRC undertook to respond by 31 October 2008.  The Application was approved by the Tribunal before the hearing date.

4.	Neither PE nor Cowgill took any steps to comply with the direction to furnish HMRC with documents and evidence as they had undertaken in the Directions which they had agreed.  Indeed nothing has been provided by the date of the present hearing.

5.	On 14 November 2008 HMRC applied for PE’s appeal to be struck out. Their grounds of appeal included a statement that PE and Cowgill had provided no information in support of the application for leave to appeal out of time.  HMRC pointed out that they were prejudiced in presenting their case by the delay because it had reduced their access “to relevant and necessary sources of information, evidence and witnesses”.

6.	PE’s application for leave to appeal out of time was relisted for hearing on 6 January 2009.  On 5 January 2009 a fax was received from “Alan Rashleigh for and on behalf of Cowgill”.  This states:

“Unfortunately Mr Cowgill has contracted the Novovirus and will therefore be unable to attend the Interlocutory hearing set for 6 January 2008, we are unable to attend on his behalf as we are not in possession of all the relevant papers”.

No medical certificate has been supplied. There is nothing to explain Mr Cowgill’s failures to comply with the agreed Direction of 14 August 2008 and to supply the Tribunal and HMRC with any reasons for PE’s continuing failure to do anything to substantiate or even explain its late appeal. Mr Rashleigh has done nothing to assist, save to send a last-minute fax asking for a postponement.

7.	I can see no grounds for granting PE an extension of time in which to appeal.  PE and Cowgill have totally disregarded the rules and directions of the Tribunal and have made no effort to explain their failures.  I am satisfied from the manner in which PE and Cowgill have pursued, or rather failed to prosecute, this matter, that their application should be dismissed.

8.	Acting in accordance with Rule 26 of the Tribunal Rules I dismiss PE’s application for leave to appeal out of time.

SIR STEPHEN OLIVER QC
CHAIRMAN

RELEASED: 12 January 2009

LON 2008/1170