Parvaiz Akhtar v The Commissioners for HMRC

Permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal is granted where the proposed grounds disclose an arguable error of law material to the outcome, or there is another compelling reason. An appeal on a point of law cannot be used to reopen factual issues or introduce matters that should have been put before the First-tier Tribunal. A document’s presence in the hearing bundle does not, by itself, show that the tribunal was asked to consider it. Disagreement with factual or credibility findings within the range open to the First-tier Tribunal does not establish an arguable error of law.

HMRC issued Parvaiz Akhtar best-judgement VAT assessments for periods from December 2019 to March 2023, totalling £29,199.19, after he failed to keep sufficient records. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) found that the assessments were made to best judgement and that Mr Akhtar had not discharged the burden of showing that their amount was inaccurate. The assessments were made under section 73 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

The First-tier Tribunal refused permission to appeal on 27 November 2025. Mr Akhtar renewed his application to the Upper Tribunal, which first refused permission on the papers and then reconsidered that refusal at a hearing on 8 July 2026. The central issue was whether any of his proposed grounds disclosed an arguable error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.

The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal. Section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 confines an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal to a point of law. Permission is appropriate where a proposed ground has a realistic prospect of success by disclosing an arguable error of law material to the outcome, or where another compelling reason exists. The standard was stated by reference to Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1538.

1. The proposed challenge to the month used in the assessments had not been shown to have been raised before the First-tier Tribunal. The reference to October in the material relied on by Mr Akhtar appeared to be a mistake; the First-tier Tribunal had proceeded on September 2022. An appeal is not an opportunity to re-litigate factual matters or raise points that should have been presented below. The Upper Tribunal relied on the observation in Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5.

2. The First-tier Tribunal had considered the explanations for the till’s no-sales entries, including the lottery transactions, and assessed their consistency, arithmetic and credibility. The Upper Tribunal considered its conclusion to be within the range open to it on the evidence. The renewed arguments about customers buying multiple scratch cards were evidential points, not arguable errors of law.

3. The alleged duplicated amounts and missing sale were factual matters that should have been raised before the First-tier Tribunal. The mere inclusion of a document in the hearing bundle did not mean the tribunal had been asked to consider it; a party must draw the document to the tribunal’s attention. The Upper Tribunal referred to Adelekan v HMRC [2020] UKUT 244 (TCC).

4. The two cash-and-carry receipts showed purchase prices and recommended retail prices for items bought on two days. They did not establish the prices at which Mr Akhtar sold the goods or the margins achieved over the assessment periods. There was no evidence that he sold at the recommended prices, and deriving period-wide margins from the receipts would require substantial extrapolation.

5. The Upper Tribunal refused permission for the Applicant’s daughter to give evidence at the hearing. The proposed evidence had not been formally notified, its content had not been explained, and notice was given only the day before the hearing. It also concerned evidence that should have been put before the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal took account of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 and the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly. The additional argument about when HMRC received the lottery statements disclosed no error of law: the First-tier Tribunal had considered the lottery explanation, and Mr Akhtar’s position had been made known before the statements were provided.

None of the grounds disclosed an arguable error of law. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — Following a hearing on 8 July 2026 to reconsider its refusal on the papers, refused permission to appeal. The decision was issued on 31 July 2026.
2. Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — Refused the renewed application for permission to appeal on the papers; the date is not stated.
3. First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Issued its substantive decision on 19 September 2025, finding that the assessments were made to best judgement and that Mr Akhtar had not shown their amount to be inaccurate. It refused permission to appeal on 27 November 2025.