Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>
Sender:
Charles Mitchell
Date:
Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:27:41
Re:
Teacakes

 

The CA has given judgment in Marks & Spencer v C & E Commissioners - 14/12/99 - now available on Casetrack. Schiemann LJ upheld Moses J's approach to the question whether M & S had passed on the wrongly paid VAT to their customers for the purposes of the VAT Act 1994, s 80(3). But he allowed part of M & S's appeal on the question whether the enactment of the Finance Act 1997 (which replaced the 6-year limitation period in VATA 1994, s 80(4) with a 3-year limitation period) improperly deprived M & S of their right to recover in respect of payments made during the earlier period as a matter of Community law. And he referred the question to the ECJ, 'whether it is compatible with Community Law to enforce legislation which removes with retrospective effect a right under national law to reclaim VAT, which right has existed unexercised for more than three years.'

_________________________________
Dr Charles Mitchell
Lecturer in Law
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS

tel: 020 7848 2290
fax: 020 7848 2465


<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !