Home Information Cases Chauhan v Inland Revenue Commissioners

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Chauhan v Inland Revenue Commissioners

Summary

It was not open to the court to go behind a statutory demand and review the correctness or otherwise of a judgment debt on which the demand was based.

Facts

The appellant (C) appealed against an order refusing his application to set aside a statutory demand. The commissioners served a statutory demand upon C based on a judgment debt that was founded upon unpaid income tax, national insurance contributions, interest and penalties. C's application to set aside the judgment was dismissed and permission to appeal refused. C's further application for permission to appeal was also dismissed on the basis that C was attempting to reopen his earlier application for appeal. C argued that he had a counterclaim that exceeded the statutory demand amount.

Held

The appeal would be dismissed. It was well-established law that it was not open to the court in the circumstances of the instant case to go behind the statutory demand and review the correctness or otherwise of the judgment debt on which the statutory demand was based. In his counterclaim C accused the commissioners of dishonesty, negligence and deceit and denied that he was ever indebted as alleged. Such a counterclaim amounted to nothing more than an attempt to argue that the original judgment made against C was incorrect and that there was no indebtedness. It was clearly an attempt to re-litigate those matters that were the subject of a judgment.

Appeal dismissed.

Chancery Division
Laddie J
Judgment date
28 April 2004
References

​[2004] BPIR 862