Judgment summary
This is HMRC's application dated 22 December 2025 to strike out Mr Geoffrey Khan's appeal pursuant to rules 5 and 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (1). The appeal concerned a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) issued to Mr Khan on 12 January 2023 under section 69D VATA, making him personally liable for a penalty imposed on Teqniq Limited under section 69C VATA (1).
HMRC contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction because Mr Khan had previously appealed the same PLN under reference TC/2023/09574, and that appeal was withdrawn by his authorised representatives on 31 January 2024, engaging section 85(4) VATA so that the decision was deemed upheld without variation, as if determined by the Tribunal (4). HMRC alternatively relied on res judicata, abuse of process, and opposed any extension of time for a late appeal (4).
Mr Khan, a litigant in person, accepted that the withdrawal email was sent by his representatives but argued he did not understand its legal consequences and was not properly advised (5). The Tribunal concluded that section 85 VATA applied to the withdrawal of the earlier appeal and that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings (6).
Background
Mr Khan was the sole director of Teqniq Limited (17). On 8 November 2022, HMRC issued Teqniq with a penalty under section 69C VATA of £247,024.80 on the basis that Teqniq knew or should have known its transactions were connected with VAT fraud (18). On 12 January 2023, HMRC issued a PLN to Mr Khan under section 69D VATA, making him personally liable for the same penalty (19).
Following a statutory review, HMRC issued a Review Conclusion Letter dated 22 March 2023 varying the penalty to £233,013.60 (20). On 22 August 2023, Mr Khan, through his then representatives, Independent Tax and Forensic Services LLP, lodged an appeal against the PLN under reference TC/2023/09574, supported by a completed Form T239 (21).
On 19 January 2024, Mr Khan emailed his representatives indicating he no longer intended to pursue the Tribunal proceedings, intended to liquidate Teqniq, and would deal with his 'personal fine through the liquidator' (23). On 31 January 2024, his representatives emailed the Tribunal and HMRC notifying withdrawal of three linked appeals, including TC/2023/09574 (24). HMRC gave no notice of unwillingness to treat the appeal as withdrawn (25). By letter dated 1 May 2024, the Tribunal confirmed the appeals had been withdrawn and specified a 28-day window for any further application, failing which the files would be closed (26). No such application was made, and HMRC did not object within the 30-day statutory period (27).
Mr Khan stated he was unaware of the withdrawal and its consequences, and that he only learned of the withdrawal during a telephone call with a Tribunal clerk on 18 September 2025, understanding its legal significance only after reading HMRC's skeleton argument on 17 July 2026 (28). On 3 January 2025, HMRC wrote indicating an intention to publish his name, which Mr Khan relied on as the first indication the PLN remained live (29). On 9 November 2025, Mr Khan lodged the present appeal, TC/2025/04762, together with an application for permission to appeal out of time, challenging the same PLN (31). On 22 December 2025, HMRC filed the strike out application (32).
Core dispute
The central issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain Mr Khan's fresh appeal against the PLN, given that his earlier appeal against the same PLN had been withdrawn by his authorised representatives and, HMRC argued, was deemed determined under section 85(4) VATA (33).
HMRC submitted that, following expiry of the statutory 30-day period under section 85(4), the Tribunal became functus officio and there was no longer any appealable matter, alternatively that the appeal was barred by res judicata and abuse of process, and that permission should not be granted for a late appeal (4).
Mr Khan opposed the application, accepting that his representatives sent the withdrawal notification but arguing he did not understand its legal consequences, was not properly advised, and did not appreciate that withdrawal would be treated as a final determination (5). He submitted it would be inappropriate to treat the present appeal as an abuse of process without considering the particular circumstances, including failings by more than one professional adviser (5).
Court findings
The Tribunal found that the material facts were not in dispute: the earlier appeal was lodged by authorised representatives, withdrawn by those representatives on 31 January 2024, and HMRC did not object within the statutory period (34). Section 85(4) VATA operated so that, where a person who has given notice of appeal notifies HMRC of a wish not to proceed and HMRC does not object within 30 days, the legislation treats the parties as having agreed that the decision under appeal should be upheld without variation, with section 85(1) giving that deemed agreement the same effect as a Tribunal determination (35).
The Tribunal held that these statutory consequences are substantive rather than procedural, following Meridian Defence & Security Ltd v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 300 (TC), OWD Limited t/a Birmingham Cash & Carry (In Liquidation) v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 0497 (TC), and Shazadi Neelam Baig t/a Zara Trading Company v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 0127 (TC) (12, 13, 14, 36).
The Tribunal accepted that Mr Khan genuinely believed he was poorly advised and may not have appreciated the legal consequences of the withdrawal at the time, but held that section 85(4) does not require the Tribunal to investigate the appellant's subsequent understanding of the legal effect of withdrawal, only whether notification was given and whether HMRC objected within 30 days (38). As Mr Khan did not contend the notification was forged, fabricated or sent without authority, the statutory conditions were met (38).
The Tribunal concluded that appeal TC/2023/09574 became a deemed determination under section 85 VATA, so the decision under appeal stood as if determined by the Tribunal in HMRC's favour, leaving no appealable matter before the Tribunal (39). Because jurisdiction was absent, the Tribunal did not reach a concluded view on abuse of process (40) or on the Martland principles governing permission for a late appeal under section 83G(6) VATA (41, 42).
Outcome
The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of appeal TC/2023/09574 engaged section 85(4) VATA and that, following expiry of the statutory period, the appeal fell to be treated as determined in HMRC's favour (44). The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal (44). HMRC's application was granted and the appeal was struck out pursuant to rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (44).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a fresh appeal against a PLN where an earlier appeal against the same PLN had been withdrawn by authorised representatives.
- Whether section 85(4) VATA 1994 operated to deem the earlier appeal determined in HMRC's favour once HMRC failed to object within the statutory 30-day period.
- Whether the appellant's lack of understanding of the legal consequences of withdrawal affected the operation of section 85(4) VATA.
- Whether the doctrine of abuse of process applied, an issue the Tribunal did not need to resolve given its finding on jurisdiction.
- Whether permission should be granted to bring a late appeal under section 83G(6) VATA applying the Martland principles, an issue that did not arise once jurisdiction was found to be absent.