The High Court quashed Revenue’s refusal to grant McPartland Oils Limited auto-fuel and marked-fuel trading licences, ruling that the information demanded for the applications went beyond the licensing power. The court did not decide the company’s tax appeal or the pending criminal charges, and said the judgment did not limit Revenue’s power to investigate or prosecute suspected offences.
The company operates from premises at Deep Water Quay, Finisklin, Sligo. Revenue refused both licence applications on 16 January 2014, saying the company had not supplied all outstanding information and that some material was incomplete or incorrect. The requests included records and explanations sought during an investigation into suspected VAT evasion.
The company argued that the licensing law allowed Revenue to seek information relevant to the licensing scheme, such as the suitability and security of the premises and whether statutory requirements were met. Revenue argued it could require information relevant to its wider statutory functions, including its investigation.
Mr Justice Keane held that the information requirement had to be read in the context of the statutory scheme governing mineral-oil tax and licensing. Revenue acted beyond its powers by requiring information for its investigation into suspected VAT evasion as a condition of deciding the licence applications.
The judgment described the investigation as involving questions about whether VAT fraud had occurred in fuel transaction chains, whether company purchases were connected to it, and whether the company or its directors knew or ought to have known. Those were investigative questions and allegations, not findings made in this judicial review.
The court also considered the consequences of the refusals. The company’s director, Damien McPartland, said in an affidavit that mineral oils accounted for most of the company’s turnover and that losing the licences would force it to close and put more than 20 employees out of work. The judge concluded that the refusals would also fail the proportionality test if that issue needed to be decided independently.
The court granted certiorari quashing both refusals. It did not decide the company’s separate request for a declaration that Revenue had failed to give adequate reasons, saying that question did not arise. The judgment leaves the Revenue investigation and any prosecution within its lawful powers unaffected.