Charles Kendall Freight Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 492 (TC)
Learna Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
9 November 2023
[2023] UKFTT 972 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
HMRC took back their decision, but the court said they still have to deal with the case. They suggested both sides agree to end it, otherwise there will be a hearing.
Key Facts
- •Learna Limited appealed HMRC's decision that it was not an eligible body for VAT purposes.
- •HMRC withdrew and cancelled its decision, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
- •HMRC applied to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules.
- •Learna Limited argued the Tribunal retained jurisdiction, citing Rasam Gayatri Silks.
- •The Tribunal considered Rasam Gayatri Silks and distinguished LS & RS v HMRC.
Legal Principles
A statutory tribunal must not act outside its jurisdiction.
Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473
An appeal must be against something; without a decision, an appeal has no meaning.
LS & RS v HMRC [2017] UKUT 257 (ACC), Furtado v City of London Brewery Company [1914] 1 KB 709
Withdrawal of a decision after an appeal is lodged does not automatically oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Rasam Gayatri Silks [2010] UKFTT 50 (TC)
Tribunal Rules 8(2)(a), 8(3)(c), 17, 29, 34.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcomes
HMRC's application to strike out the appeal was refused.
The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction despite HMRC's withdrawal of its decision. The situation was distinguished from LS & RS v HMRC because there was no replacement decision, only a withdrawal.
The Tribunal invited the parties to make a joint application to allow the appeal by consent under Rule 34.
This would provide a swifter resolution.
If no joint application is made, a hearing will be necessary to determine the appeal.
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the appeal without a hearing unless both parties agree.