Gurmit Singh v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 738 (TC)
Freedom Recycling Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
2 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 369 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A recycling company was assessed for unpaid alcohol duty because trucks picked up alcohol from its site, even though the company denied knowledge. The court ruled the company was responsible because it 'held' the alcohol, even without knowing about it. The penalties were also upheld.
Key Facts
- •Freedom Recycling Ltd. (Appellant) appeals against an excise duty assessment of £46,749 and a penalty of £14,024.70.
- •HMRC found evidence that two alcohol consignments were collected from the Appellant's premises in August 2012 without duty payment.
- •Third-party hauliers' invoices implicated the Appellant's premises as the collection point.
- •The Appellant denied any involvement in alcohol and claimed the assessments were untimely.
- •HMRC investigations involved multiple hauliers and witness statements.
- •A prior HMRC visit in 2012 found no evidence of excise duty evasion.
- •The Appellant's premises had controlled access and a weigh-in system for waste, but no automated system.
Legal Principles
Timeliness of Assessment: The one-year time limit in s 12(4)(b) FA 1994 starts when sufficient evidence justifying the assessment comes to HMRC's knowledge; it's a subjective test focusing on the assessing officer's knowledge, not collective knowledge.
s 12(4)(b) FA 1994, Pegasus Birds, Lithuanian Beer, DCM, Tooth
Liability for Excise Duty: A person 'holding' excise goods outside a duty suspension arrangement without duty paid is liable, regardless of knowledge or intent.
reg. 6(1)(b) Excise Goods Regulations 2010, Dawson’s, Perfect, WR
Best Judgment Assessments: HMRC can make assessments based on the best available evidence; a high threshold must be met to invalidate an assessment on best judgment grounds.
Van Boeckel, Pegasus Birds, Rahman, Corneill
Excise Wrongdoing Penalty: Liability to a penalty under Schedule 41 does not depend on the validity of the excise duty assessment; the time limit starts when the assessment is determined.
Schedule 41 FA 2008, Euro Wines, Caerdav
Carltona Principle: The knowledge of a civil servant is not automatically imputed to their minister.
Carltona Ltd v Commissioner for Works, R (National Association of Health Stores) v Department of Health
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Assessment and Penalty were issued in time. The Appellant was held liable for excise duty because it 'held' the goods within the meaning of the regulations, even without knowledge or intent. The penalty was properly applied.