Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Sintra Global Inc and another (Appellants)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0011

Parties

Appellant(s)

Sintra Global Inc & Parul Keshavlal Malde

Respondent(s)

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Issue

When a taxpayer appeals against an HMRC penalty on the basis that the underlying tax claimed is not owed, does the burden rest on the taxpayer to prove that he or she is not liable to pay the underlying tax?

Facts

The First Appellant, Sintra Global Inc (‘Sintra Global’), is a Panamanian company which conducted a substantial cross-border trade in alcohol between the UK and the European Union. The Second Appellant, Mr Parul Malde, is Sintra’s principal. HMRC allege that Sintra Global systematically evaded paying VAT and UK excise duties on alcohol, by mislabelling consignments of alcoholic drinks as for consumption in mainland European countries with lower alcohol duties and then smuggling them to the UK. It is HMRC’s case that between 2004 and 2015 companies controlled by Mr Malde avoided in excess of £50 million of VAT and excise duty. Mr Malde’s companies never registered for VAT and his case is that they never sold any alcoholic beverages for consumption in the UK. HMRC’s ‘best of judgment’ assessment is that between April 2012 and June 2015 Sintra Global failed to pay £8.9 million of VAT. HMRC imposed a registration penalty of £8.9 million in respect of Sintra Global’s non-registration for and payment of VAT. HMRC imposed a personal liability notice making Mr Malde Liable for Sintra Global’s registration penalty. It also separately imposed a director’s liability notice making him personally liable for a £11,162,180 civil evasion penalty imposed on a Belizean company, Sintra SA. Prior to 2012, Mr Malde conducted his cross-border alcohol trading business through Sintra SA. Sintra Global appealed against the registration penalty. Mr Malde appealed against the personal liability notice and the director’s liability notice. Importantly for the course of the litigation, neither company appealed against the underlying VAT assessments. However, the basis of Mr Malde and Sintra Global’s appeal against the penalties was that the two companies were not in fact liable to pay any VAT. The First Tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) upheld Sintra Global and Mr Malde’s appeals. In doing so, the FTT held that HMRC bore the burden of proving that the companies owed the underlying VAT. HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal (‘UT’). The UT agreed with the FTT that HMRC bore the burden of proving that the underlying tax was owed. However, HMRC’s appeal succeeded on other grounds. HMRC appealed again to the Court of Appeal and succeeded before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that, contrary to the FTT and UT’s conclusions, the legal burden of proof lay with Mr Malde and Sintra Global. Mr Malde and Sintra Global now seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

19 January 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top