The High Court has declined an application for judicial review by L.C. Autolink Ltd. and its principal, Lee Cullen, over Revenue’s detention and seizure of four unregistered Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution cars. The court refused relief on discretionary grounds and also rejected the applicants’ challenges to the seizure procedures and their claim that fair procedures had been denied.
Revenue officers found the cars at Autolink’s garage in Saggart, Co. Dublin, during a visit on 12 December 2007. The vehicles were unregistered and absent from the company’s stock records. They were detained for investigation and seized on 21 December. Cullen told Revenue that he had personally bought the cars, paid for two and still had to pay for the other two. He also accepted that they had been imported on 19 October.
The applicants argued that the cars were “special purpose vehicles” designed mainly for racing and therefore exempt from vehicle registration tax. They also challenged errors in Revenue’s detention and seizure notices and alleged a denial of natural justice. Revenue’s notices contained incorrect statutory references, which officials later amended. Revenue had offered to release the cars on payment of tax, penalties and a charge; a later Revenue letter put the amount due at €124,201.28. The applicants did not pursue the statutory appeal process, which required payment before an appeal could be considered.
The judge found that Cullen’s testimony seeking to explain his earlier admissions was evasive and untrue. He said the lack of candour applied to both applicants and was a reason to dismiss the proceedings. The court also held that the Revenue appeals process was the appropriate route for the factual disputes about ownership and the cars’ characteristics, and refused relief on that separate discretionary ground.
The court did not make a final determination that the cars were liable for tax. It held that the information available to Revenue was sufficient for its preliminary view that they were prima facie liable to vehicle registration tax and VAT, subject to appeal. It found that errors in the notices were technical and did not go to jurisdiction, and that there had been no breach of fair procedures. The judgment declined judicial review; it did not order forfeiture or determine a tax appeal.