The judgment in Tajinder Pawar v HMRC [2025] UKUT 309 (TCC) clarifies how tribunals exercise discretion under s.83G (6) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 when faced with extreme delay. The decision applies the three-stage test from Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) but follows Medpro Healthcare Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 255 (TCC) in removing any “special weight” for statutory time limits. Despite that legal correction, the Tribunal held that Mr Pawar’s delay, more than three years, was wholly unjustified.
The case is a cautionary reminder that director-level taxpayers cannot rely on adviser error or assumed settlements to excuse procedural default. Expert legal guidance is necessary when faced with an HMRC personal liability notice.
Case Background
Mr Pawar was the director of First Stop Wholesale Ltd, which HMRC assessed in 2014 for £2.64 million VAT due on supplies between 2010 and 2014. HMRC concluded that input tax had been claimed on invoices addressed not to the company but to Mr Pawar’s sole-trader business, The Wine Lodge. In 2015 HMRC issued the company with a penalty of £1.26 million and then made Mr Pawar personally liable under Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007.
HMRC later reduced the PLN to £874,238 in October 2017. Following a statutory review in November 2018, the decision was upheld and a letter sent directly to Mr Pawar stated his right to appeal within 30 days. No appeal was filed by Mr Pawar.
He claimed that his adviser at Tiberius Solutions failed to explain the deadline. The appeal was eventually lodged on 22 February 2022, over 38 months late. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) refused permission which is why he appealed to the Upper Tribunal. This case is an example of why it is absolutely crucial to obtain expert tax guidance from solicitors who have been successfully tested in litigation against HMRC.
Read the Full Judgment Below:
Key Findings in Pawar v HMRC
1. Merits Not “Obviously Strong”
Mr Pawar argued that HMRC had agreed in 2015 that there was no tax loss and that “corrective action” (re-routing VAT through his own registration) could have regularised matters. The Upper Tribunal held this argument was misconceived: the four-year statutory limit for corrections had long expired and the information required for HMRC’s agreement was never supplied. The judges confirmed that tribunals need only consider whether underlying merits are obviously strong or weak, and here they were not.
2. Adviser Negligence Not a Defence
The Tribunal rejected the claim that adviser failings excused the delay. Although HMRC v Katib [2019] UKUT 189 (TCC) establishes a general rule that an adviser’s error is attributed to the client, the FTT had not misapplied that rule. It found Mr Pawar personally responsible because he ignored a letter sent to him which clearly set out the appeal procedure. The Upper Tribunal agreed: even without adviser negligence, a taxpayer who receives a direct notice cannot assume matters will “be sorted out” without taking action.
3. Bankruptcy Risk Considered
Mr Pawar said refusing permission would force him into bankruptcy. The Upper Tribunal accepted that the risk was real but held it was not decisive. Financial prejudice is common in late-appeal cases and cannot outweigh serious delay. The Tribunal approved the FTT’s reasoning that hardship “is common to all such cases.”
4. The Medpro Principle
The only legal error arose because the FTT had given “particular importance” to respecting time limits, wording which Medpro had since ruled “clearly wrong.” Following Medpro, no pre-determined weight may be given to such factors; they are simply part of the overall balance. The Upper Tribunal therefore set aside the FTT’s decision but remade it, applying Martland without that special weight. The outcome was unchanged: permission for a late appeal remained refused.
Upper Tribunal’s Revised Decision
Re-evaluating the evidence, the Upper Tribunal confirmed the delay of more than three years was unjustified. The reasons offered, reliance on advisers, inattention, and misplaced assumption, were inadequate. The review conclusion letter clearly stated the 30-day limit, yet Mr Pawar neither appealed nor followed up with HMRC despite reminders.
At [106], the Tribunal concluded that even considering bankruptcy risk, “the prejudice to the appellant is not sufficiently great as to outweigh more than three years’ unjustified delay.” The prospects of success were “not obviously strong,” and HMRC would face clear prejudice if forced to revisit settled assessments. The Personal Liability Notice therefore remained enforceable.
Legal and Practical Implications
Reinforcing Strict Time Discipline
Pawar v HMRC confirms that the 30-day limit for appealing tax decisions is not a technicality. Tribunals expect immediate action. Delays beyond 12 months are almost never excused unless there is compelling evidence that the taxpayer was prevented from appealing. Here, long silence and lack of documentation proved fatal.
Adviser Failings Remain Taxpayer Responsibility
The judgment underscores that reliance on advisers provides no automatic protection. Even where advice was plainly deficient, the tribunal expects directors to oversee their own affairs. Clients may sue negligent advisers, but cannot use negligence as a shield against HMRC enforcement. Timely legal advice from experts is essential at this stage.
Impact of Medpro
Procedurally, Pawar shows how Medpro has refined the Martland test. Tribunals can no longer elevate time-limit compliance above all else, yet this does not lower the threshold for late appeals. Rather, it requires a balanced assessment of delay, reasons and prejudice, an assessment that still produced the same outcome here. Read our comprehensive case study on Medpro and its implications.
Consequences for Directors and Insolvent Companies
Personal Liability Notices transfer corporate VAT penalties to individuals where a “deliberate inaccuracy” is attributable to an officer. Directors facing insolvency must act swiftly to contest such notices through expert tax advice. Once deadlines expire, late appeals will only succeed where delay is minimal and convincingly explained. The Tribunal in Pawar found no such justification despite the potential for bankruptcy, confirming that financial hardship alone will rarely suffice.
Instruct Expert London Tax Solicitors
The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Pawar v HMRC provides a definitive warning: procedural delay is rarely forgiven. The court corrected the FTT’s legal reasoning but not its result, showing that even under the refined Medpro framework, tribunals will refuse permission where appellants ignore clear statutory deadlines.
Directors must treat HMRC correspondence as urgent, not optional. Personal liability can attach even where the underlying tax dispute appears arguable or where “no tax loss” is claimed. Once the 30-day clock expires, discretion is narrow and fact-sensitive. For professionals defending director claims or advising on late appeals, the case reinforces the value of immediate, documented action and direct oversight. At LEXLAW, we are routinely instructed to represented high-value clients in similar disputes with HMRC. As this judgment illustrates, time truly is of the essence in tax litigation. If you are faced with a HMRC Personal Liability Notice, contact now for expert legal advice!
Want legal advice from Tax Solicitors on your case?
Our simple enquiry form goes immediately to our tax litigators in Middle Temple, London. Call us on +442071830529 from 9am-6pm.
FAQs: Late Tax Appeals and Personal Liability Notices
What is a Personal Liability Notice (PLN)?
A PLN is a notice issued by HMRC under paragraph 19, Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007, holding a company officer personally liable for deliberate inaccuracies in the company’s tax returns. It effectively transfers corporate tax penalties to the individual director or responsible person. See our guide to defending Personal Liability Notices for more information.
How long do I have to appeal an HMRC decision?
Taxpayers normally have 30 days from the date of the review or decision letter to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under section 83G(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Missing that deadline means the appeal is “out of time,” and you must apply for the tribunal’s discretion to accept a late appeal.
Can I bring a late appeal if my accountant or adviser missed the deadline?
Usually not. As reaffirmed in Pawar v HMRC [2025] UKUT 309 (TCC), adviser error is generally treated as the taxpayer’s own responsibility. The tribunal will expect you to have exercised reasonable oversight of your tax affairs. Negligent professional advice may form the basis of a separate professional negligence claim, but it rarely justifies a late appeal.
Does the Tribunal consider financial hardship or bankruptcy risk?
Yes, but it is not decisive. In Pawar v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal accepted that bankruptcy would cause “very great prejudice” yet ruled it was not enough to outweigh three years of unjustified delay. Financial hardship is common in tax disputes and will not by itself justify extending time.
What legal test applies to late tax appeals?
Tribunals follow the three-stage test in Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC): (1) assess the seriousness of delay, (2) consider reasons for default, and (3) balance prejudice and fairness. Following Medpro UT [2025] UKUT 255 (TCC), tribunals no longer give special or “pre-determined” weight to statutory time limits, but delay remains a key factor.
How did the Medpro decision affect Pawar v HMRC?
Medpro UT overruled the idea that tribunals must treat respect for time limits as having particular importance. The Upper Tribunal in Pawar corrected the FTT’s reasoning accordingly, yet still refused permission, showing that even under the refined approach, lengthy and unexplained delay is almost never excused.
What steps should I take if I’ve already missed the appeal deadline?
Act immediately. Gather all correspondence showing why the delay occurred and instruct experienced solicitors to prepare a detailed application explaining the reasons and potential prejudice. However, as Pawar v HMRC demonstrates, appeals delayed for years are rarely admitted, so early action is crucial.