Judgment summary
This is a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) on HMRC's application to strike out an appeal brought in the name of Mr Mazher Iqbal against two Personal Liability Notices (PLNs) totalling £173,928, relating to corporation tax and VAT (1). The Tribunal, Judge Anne Redston, decided the matter on the papers, having heard the application on 19 October 2026 (heading).
The Tribunal held that Mr Iqbal, who was bankrupt at the time the Appeal was made, did not have standing to bring it, because that right vested in his trustee in bankruptcy, Mr Horan of KBL Advisory, who had declined to pursue the Appeal (6, 13). The Tribunal further found that the person who filed the Appeal, Mr Jangeer Hussain, had not been shown to be properly authorised by Mr Iqbal to act as his representative (6, 19). Finally, the Tribunal found that, even if those obstacles were overcome, a statutory bar under TMA s 54 and VATA s 85 prevented the Tribunal from reinstating the appeal, because an earlier Notice of Appeal against the same PLNs had been withdrawn in February 2024 (6, 20-26).
The Tribunal declined to stay its decision on the strike out application pending the outcome of Mr Hussain's application for permission to appeal a High Court decision concerning the Trustee's refusal to litigate (6, 12). The strike out application was allowed and the Appeal was struck out (27).
Background
On 29 January 2021, HMRC issued Mr Iqbal with a PLN relating to corporation tax, and on the same day another PLN relating to VAT, with a total amount in issue of £173,928 (1). Statute required any appeal against those decisions to be made by 1 March 2021 (1).
In 2023, Mr Iqbal's then representative filed a Notice of Appeal against the PLNs, including an application for permission to make a late appeal. That appeal and the related application were withdrawn in February 2024 (2).
On 1 October 2025, the Tribunal received a new Notice of Appeal against the PLNs, again including an application for permission to make a late appeal (together, 'the Appeal') (3). By that date, Mr Iqbal had been made bankrupt, and his trustee in bankruptcy was Mr Horan of KBL Advisory ('the Trustee') (3). The Appeal was filed by Mr Jangeer Hussain, identified in the Notice of Appeal as Mr Iqbal's representative (4). HMRC applied to the Tribunal to strike out the Appeal (4).
Core dispute
The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the Appeal. This raised three sub-issues: first, whether Mr Iqbal, as a bankrupt, had standing to bring the Appeal or whether that right vested solely in his Trustee; second, whether Mr Hussain had been duly authorised by Mr Iqbal to act as his representative; and third, whether a statutory bar arising from the earlier withdrawal of the 2023 appeal prevented the Tribunal from considering a fresh appeal or reinstatement (6).
A further procedural issue was whether the Tribunal should stay its decision on HMRC's strike out application pending the outcome of Mr Hussain's application for permission to appeal a High Court judgment concerning the Trustee's refusal to litigate (6).
Court findings
The Tribunal held that the Trustee, not Mr Iqbal, had standing to bring an appeal against the PLNs, relying on In the Matter of GP Aviation Group International Limited [2013] EWHC 1447 (Ch) (6, 8-9). The Trustee had initially raised no objection to Mr Iqbal running the litigation at his own cost, but on 2 February 2026, after taking legal advice, changed position and said he did not 'support or acquiesce' in the Appeal, a position reconfirmed on 8 July 2026 (10).
Mr Iqbal's challenge to the Trustee's conduct was heard by Judge Prentis at the High Court on 30 April 2026, who decided the Trustee was acting within his reasonable discretion (11). Mr Iqbal sought permission to appeal that decision and asked the Tribunal to delay its strike out decision, but had not provided the outcome some six months later (12). The Tribunal declined to stay its decision, reasoning that even if permission to appeal were granted and Mr Iqbal succeeded at the Court of Appeal, Mr Hussain had not shown he was authorised to act for Mr Iqbal, and in any event a statutory bar would prevent the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction (6).
On authorisation, the Tribunal noted that the Notice of Appeal and the T239 form did not bear a 'wet' signature from Mr Iqbal, and that the same email address was used for both Mr Iqbal and Mr Hussain (14). A pdf headed 'Authority and appointment of lay representative' submitted on 10 August 2026 contained only a typed name and claimed Mr Iqbal was unable to read or write in any language or use a computer (16-17). The Tribunal rejected that claim as not credible, noting that Mr Iqbal had run a business, Balti International Ltd, described by Companies House as a 'restaurant' or 'café', for several years (18). It followed that the Appeal had not been made by Mr Iqbal or by an authorised representative on his behalf (19).
On the statutory bar, the Tribunal found that the 2023 appeal, filed under TC/2023/08979, had been properly notified to the parties and subsequently withdrawn (20). Applying TMA s 54 and VATA s 85, the Tribunal held that where an appellant withdraws a Tribunal appeal and 30 days elapse, the parties are treated as having agreed that the assessment is upheld, with the same consequences as if the Tribunal had determined it, citing OWD v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 06675 (TC) (22-24). Rule 17 of the Tribunal Rules, which permits reinstatement, is subject to any statutory provision relating to withdrawal, and TMA s 54 and VATA s 85 therefore prevented reinstatement outside the 30-day period (25). The Tribunal held that this reasoning applied even though the 2023 Notice of Appeal had contained an undetermined late appeal application at the time of withdrawal (26).
Outcome
The Tribunal allowed HMRC's strike out application and struck out the Appeal (27). The decision records full findings of fact and reasons, with a right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 of the Tribunal Rules within 56 days of the decision being sent (28).
The Tribunal directed that any permission to appeal application by Mr Iqbal would not be considered unless accompanied by a Court of Appeal decision setting aside Judge Prentis's High Court judgment so as to give Mr Iqbal standing (29). Any such application by Mr Hussain on Mr Iqbal's behalf would additionally require a letter of authority signed by Mr Iqbal in the presence of, and certified by, a UK qualified solicitor or barrister, to be separately forwarded to the Tribunal (30-31).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether a bankrupt appellant has standing to bring a tax appeal where his trustee in bankruptcy has not done so.
- Whether Mr Jangeer Hussain was a duly authorised representative of Mr Iqbal, given the absence of a wet signature and a disputed claim of illiteracy.
- Whether the Tribunal should stay its strike out decision pending an application for permission to appeal a High Court judgment concerning the Trustee's refusal to litigate.
- Whether TMA s 54 and VATA s 85 created a statutory bar preventing the Tribunal from considering a fresh appeal or reinstatement following the earlier withdrawal of the 2023 appeal.
- Whether Rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules permitted reinstatement of the withdrawn appeal despite the statutory bar.