Centralan Property Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners
Language: English Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2003] EWHC 44 (Ch), 23 January 2003. Centralan Property Ltd (X) appealed to the HC against a decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal which backed the Commissioners' calculation of how VAT should be paid on disposal of a building. The Commissioners claimed that in calculating the tax to be paid on disposal of the building, the supply under the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 Reg 115(3) should be calculated through an apportionment based upon the respective values between the supply constituted by the lease and the supply constituted by the transfer. The figure arrived at was £796 090 whilst X claimed the amount due was £943. The HL declared that the interpretation of Reg 115(3) of the 1995 Act depended upon the interpretation of the Sixth VAT Directive Art 20(3) and referred the case to the European Court of Justice for interpretation of how this should be applied to supplies of immovable property.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121234-2001 |
[2003] EWHC 44 (Ch), 23 January 2003. Centralan Property Ltd (X) appealed to the HC against a decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal which backed the Commissioners' calculation of how VAT should be paid on disposal of a building. The Commissioners claimed that in calculating the tax to be paid on disposal of the building, the supply under the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 Reg 115(3) should be calculated through an apportionment based upon the respective values between the supply constituted by the lease and the supply constituted by the transfer. The figure arrived at was £796 090 whilst X claimed the amount due was £943. The HL declared that the interpretation of Reg 115(3) of the 1995 Act depended upon the interpretation of the Sixth VAT Directive Art 20(3) and referred the case to the European Court of Justice for interpretation of how this should be applied to supplies of immovable property.