Refund of Vat overpayments precluded by agreement
Customs and Excise: binding agreement on tax calculations;
Gus Merchandise v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1994) (CA 20.10.94) (Steyn LJ, Saville LJ and Sir John May)
Summary: Inaccurate sampling techniques resulting in over payment of Vat by mail order companies.
More Vat was payable by mail order companies on sales to their agents for the agents' own use than on sales of goods for resale. Sampling techniques had been inaccurate resulting in overpayments of Vat over a long period. On appeal by the companies against refusal to refund the excess payments.