- SK Metals was found not to have known or should have known about VAT fraud.
- Suspicious factors were reasonably explained.
- Denial of input tax was incorrect.
- Penalties and PLN were dismissed.
- Imperfect due diligence does not mean wilful blindness; the judgment is favorable for MTIC-related cases.
Source: deeksvat.co.uk
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- UK VAT Rules on Online Prize Draws Face Scrutiny Amid New Voluntary Code and Industry Growth
- How UK Businesses Accidentally Trigger US State Sales Tax Through Ecommerce and Economic Nexus
- Director Liable for VAT Fraud and PAYE/NIC on Withdrawals: Ellis & Anor v HMRC (2026)
- UK VAT Gap Rises to £11.9bn in 2024–25, HMRC Reports 6.5% Shortfall
- Luzha v HMRC: VAT Late Submission Penalties Upheld, No Reasonable Excuse Found, Appeal Dismissed














