Anandpreet Powar v The Commissioners for HMRC

On a strike-out application, a tribunal may assess factual and evaluative issues where the evidence before it supports the conclusion that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. A party’s failure to identify evidence capable of answering that case may mean the tribunal need not balance evidence that has not been produced. The resulting decision is not necessarily an impermissible mini-trial.

Article 6 fairness is assessed by looking at the proceedings as a whole. Strike-out is compatible with a fair hearing where the party had a proper opportunity to present evidence and submissions and received a reasoned decision.

Mr Powar, the sole director and shareholder of Drinks 4 Less (UK) Ltd, appealed a personal liability notice concerning excise duty and penalties assessed against the company under Schedule 41 to the Finance Act 2008. The First-tier Tribunal struck out his appeal in a decision released on 9 December 2025, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

After the FTT refused permission to appeal, the Upper Tribunal granted permission on grounds 2 and 3 but refused it on grounds 1 and 4. Mr Powar renewed his application on grounds 1 and 4 for oral reconsideration. He argued that the FTT had impermissibly determined disputed facts at the strike-out stage and that the process breached his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The question was whether either ground disclosed an arguable error of law.

1. Ground 1: strike-out and evidence. Permission was refused. The FTT was entitled to assess whether excise duty had been paid and to resolve related factual and evaluative issues when deciding whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. It had identified and applied the principles in The First de Sales Limited v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 396 (TCC). The FTT had significant evidence supporting HMRC’s position, including the May FTT decision, the sentencing remarks and HMRC’s review letter. Mr Powar had been given the opportunity to file evidence but had not done so. He identified no specific evidence, or credible category of evidence, that might establish that duty had been paid or that reliance on third parties could assist him. In those circumstances, the FTT was not required to balance evidence that had not been produced and had not conducted an impermissible mini-trial.

2. The findings and underlying evidence in the separate VAT penalty proceedings were admissible to the extent that they were relevant to, or overlapped with, the excise appeal. They were not binding or conclusive in that appeal. The FTT considered the excise issue on the evidence before it.

3. Ground 4: Article 6. Permission was refused. Article 6 does not in itself prevent a tribunal from striking out a case for abuse of process or lack of reasonable prospects. Fairness depends on a broad assessment of the proceedings as a whole, including the nature and seriousness of the issue and the circumstances of the case. Applying the approach in CF Booth Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2022] UKUT 217 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal concluded that Mr Powar had a fair opportunity to file evidence and make oral and written submissions, and that the FTT gave a reasoned decision. His later wish to call evidence did not establish unfairness when he had not identified evidence he could credibly produce at the time.

4. Permission to appeal was refused on the renewed grounds 1 and 4. The earlier grant of permission on grounds 2 and 3 remained in place.

• Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): On oral reconsideration, refused permission on renewed grounds 1 and 4. An earlier decision had granted permission on grounds 2 and 3.
• First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber): Struck out Mr Powar’s appeal against the excise personal liability notice in a decision released on 9 December 2025. On 17 April 2026, it refused permission to appeal.