In Megantic Services Ltd v HMRC (No. 4) (TC02770 – 12 July) HMRC considered that a company (M) had been involved in MTIC fraud. They applied to amend their statement of case to include ‘evidence that (M) either paid incomplete consideration for its purchase of the relevant goods or made no payment at all’. M opposed the application but the FTT granted it observing that HMRC had requested relevant information from M eleven months previously so that M had ‘been given sufficient warning so as not to put it in this respect on an unequal footing or add an excessive burden to (M’s) task of preparing for the hearing in this appeal’.
In Megantic Services Ltd v HMRC (No. 4) (TC02770 – 12 July) HMRC considered that a company (M) had been involved in MTIC fraud. They applied to amend their statement of case to include ‘evidence that (M) either paid incomplete consideration for its purchase of the relevant goods or made no payment at all’. M opposed the application but the FTT granted it observing that HMRC had requested relevant information from M eleven months previously so that M had ‘been given sufficient warning so as not to put it in this respect on an unequal footing or add an excessive burden to (M’s) task of preparing for the hearing in this appeal’.
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")