“ It is well established that the only party to submit a refund claim is the person who actually accounted for the VAT to Customs and Excise. There is no mechanism that allows the recipient of a supply to submit refund claims. In this regard the tribunal follows the reasoning of the tribunal in the appeal of Aberdeen Estates Ltd (EDN/94/235) (unreported). As Miss Haynes said, on behalf of the Respondents at the tribunal, with which the tribunal agrees, there cannot be any liability on the Commissioners to make a refund to Mr Allen because he was not the person who accounted for the VAT in relation to the three invoices. There may well be a private law relationship between the two suppliers Mr Hooper and Mr Joynes, on the one hand and the Appellant on the other where a three year limit for claiming may not be applicable. However, the main point is that Mr Allen cannot stand in the shoes of the two suppliers in asking for a refund in respect of VAT erroneously paid on the three invoices.”
“ reject the submission of the Appellant that he should be refunded by HMRC the amount of VAT at 17.5 per cent in respect of expenditure covered by the Scheme. As tax was never due at that rate in the first place, and should not have been paid, and is properly refundable to the Appellant by his payees as indicated above, there is no call upon HMRC to make such a refund directly to him. The difference between the tax due at 5 per cent and tax supposedly due at 17.5 per cent is outside the scope of the Scheme, and it would be improper for a refund in respect thereof to be made to the Appellant by HMRC.”
“ The jurisdiction of the Tribunal derives from statute and cannot be enlarged upon either at the volition of the Tribunal or by the consent of the parties. There is nothing in any legislation which gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to act as arbiters……. There is now a fully fledged official complaints procedure ……and the appropriate avenue to the Appellant would be to take his case to the Adjudicator.”