HMRC updates guidance on time limits for requesting reviews in indirect tax cases

The update

HMRC has updated ARTG3060 (May 2026); any impact on standard wording is indirect, thus does not change the pre-established principles.

The update affects the template letters sent to taxpayers when HMRC makes an appealable indirect tax decision. ARTG3060 clarifies HMRC’s approach to extensions of time, which may influence how those rights are described in decision letters.

The legal framework: reviews and appeals in indirect tax

The statutory basis

The right to a review and the time limits for accepting one are set out in primary legislation.

For VAT:

• Section 83A VATA 1994 - HMRC must offer a review when making certain appealable decisions
• Section 83C VATA 1994 - Time limits for accepting a review offer (30 days from the decision letter)
• Section 83D VATA 1994 - Power to extend the period for accepting a review offer
• Section 83E VATA 1994 - Late review requests (requires reasonable excuse and no undue delay)

For excise and customs duties:

• Section 14 Finance Act 1994 - Certain decisions allow 45 days to send a notice requiring a review
• Section 14A Finance Act 1994 - Late review requests for section 14-type decisions (requires reasonable excuse and no undue delay)
• Section 15D Finance Act 1994 - Extension of time to accept review offer under section 15A route
• Section 15E Finance Act 1994 - Late review requests under section 15A route

Important: The excise and customs framework has two distinct routes. Section 14 decisions follow the section 14/14A pathway. Section 15A decisions (where HMRC offers a review) follow the section 15D/15E pathway. Practitioners should identify which route applies to the decision in question.

The 30-day and 45-day rules

When HMRC makes an appealable indirect tax decision, the decision letter, in most instances, must include an offer of review. The taxpayer then has a limited period to respond:

Tas Type and Time Limit

• VAT - 30 days from the date of the decision letter
• Certain customs and excise decisions (section 14 FA 1994) - 45 days from the date of the decision letter

Within that period, the taxpayer may:

1. Accept the offer of a review; or
2. Appeal directly to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Extensions of time

Under section 83D VATA 1994 (and section 15D FA 1994 for certain excise decisions), HMRC may extend the period in which the taxpayer can accept the offer of a review.

Key points from HMRC's guidance (ARTG3060):

• The extension does not have to be requested by the taxpayer — HMRC can offer it proactively
• The extension may be for a further 30 days, running from the date of HMRC's letter, or from a future date specified in the letter
• HMRC is encouraged to use this power where the taxpayer is likely to provide further information or arguments, to prevent cases entering the formal review process prematurely

Critical timing point

HMRC can only grant an extension if it notifies the taxpayer before the expiry of the original statutory period — that is, within 30 days for VAT or within 45 days for section 14 excise/customs decisions. It is therefore prudent for the taxpayer to contact HMRC in sufficient time for HMRC to respond within that window. A request made on day 31 (or day 46) may well be too late.

What happens if the deadline is missed?

If the taxpayer does not accept the review offer or appeal within the time limit (including any extension), the position becomes significantly more difficult:

• A late request for review may only be accepted by HMRC under section 83E VATA 1994 (or section 14A / 15E FA 1994 as applicable) if:
  • There is a reasonable excuse for the delay; and
  • The request is made without undue delay once that excuse has ended
• If HMRC refuses a late review request, the taxpayer may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to bring a late appeal. This is not an automatic right — the tribunal has discretion to refuse permission.
• HMRC has no power to extend the appeal or review time limit after it has expired.

How this impacts taxpayers

1. Time limits are strictly enforced

The 30-day (or 45-day) window is short. Taxpayers who receive an HMRC decision letter on a VAT, customs or excise matter must act quickly. Delays, even of a few weeks, can result in the loss of appeal rights.

2. Extensions must be sought promptly

If a taxpayer needs more time (for example, to gather documents, take advice, or prepare representations), they must contact HMRC before the original deadline expires. Waiting until the deadline has passed to ask for an extension is too late, HMRC cannot grant one retrospectively.

3. Late appeals face a high bar

If the deadline is missed, the taxpayer must demonstrate a reasonable excuse and show that they acted without undue delay once the excuse ended. The tribunal applies this test strictly, see case law below.

4. The amendment may affect letter wording

The update to the standard paragraphs may result in clearer wording in HMRC decision letters about the right to request an extension. Taxpayers should read these letters carefully.

Relevant case law

Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)

This is the foundational authority on late tax appeals and the approach the tribunal should take when deciding whether to grant permission to appeal out of time.

Mr Martland sought to appeal an excise duty assessment. His appeal was made late. He applied for permission to bring a late appeal.

The Upper Tribunal set out a three-stage test for late appeals:

• Establish the length of the delay - how late is the appeal?
• Identify the reasons for the delay - is there a reasonable excuse?
• Evaluate all the circumstances - weighing the prejudice to each party and the merits of the underlying appeal

The Upper Tribunal emphasised that the FTT's jurisdiction to admit a late appeal is a judicial discretion to be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective. However, it also stated that Parliament has imposed a time limit and that time limits should be respected.

At paragraph [45], the tribunal gave particular weight to the need to respect statutory time limits, indicating that the merits of the underlying case should not automatically override a failure to comply with procedural deadlines.

Medpro Healthcare Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 255 (TCC)

In July 2025, the Upper Tribunal revisited the Martland framework in Medpro Healthcare Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 255 (TCC).

The Upper Tribunal (Mr Justice Marcus Smith and Judge Jonathan Cannan) held that at stage three of the Martland test, statutory time limits should not automatically take precedence over the merits of the underlying appeal. This was a significant modification of the Martland approach, and generated substantial commentary among practitioners.

HMRC v Medpro Healthcare Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 14

On 19 January 2026, the Court of Appeal (Lewison, Whipple and Miles LJJ) unanimously reversed the Upper Tribunal's decision in Medpro and restored the full Martland framework, including the "particular importance" direction on statutory time limits at paragraph [45].

The Court of Appeal held that the Upper Tribunal had been wrong to dilute the weight to be given to the statutory deadline, and confirmed that the three-stage Martland test, with its emphasis on respecting Parliament's time limits, remains the correct approach.

For now, Martland as restored by the Court of Appeal is the governing authority. Taxpayers who miss deadlines should not assume that a strong underlying case will persuade the tribunal to overlook delay. The law remains strict.

Post-Brexit position

The procedural rules for tax appeals are a matter of domestic law. The UK is no longer bound by EU procedural requirements.

Under EU law, the principle of effectiveness required that national procedural rules must not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult to exercise rights conferred by EU law. This influenced the structure of VAT appeals while the UK was a member state.

Post-Brexit, the domestic statutory framework and the Martland principles (as restored by the Court of Appeal) now govern. EU case law on procedural rights in tax matters is of limited direct relevance, though it may still be cited where the underlying substantive issue involves assimilated EU law (e.g. the interpretation of VAT provisions derived from the Principal VAT Directive).

Practical recommendations for taxpayers

• Read HMRC decision letters carefully and immediately on receipt
• Note the deadline (30 or 45 days) from the date of the letter
• If more time is needed, request an extension before the deadline, ideally within 14 days
• If accepting a review, confirm in writing within the deadline (or extended period)
• If appealing to the tribunal, file notice, within the deadline or 30 days after review conclusion
• If deadline missed, seek advice immediately, reasonable excuse and no undue delay required

Conclusion

The above is a reminder that procedural compliance in indirect tax disputes is not optional. The 30-day (or 45-day) time limit for accepting a review or appealing to the tribunal is strictly enforced, and extensions must be sought before the deadline expires.

Taxpayers who miss the deadline face an uphill battle. The Martland test, now restored by the Court of Appeal in HMRC v Medpro [2026] EWCA Civ 14, requires both a reasonable excuse and prompt action once that excuse ends. The tribunal will not simply waive delay because the underlying case appears strong.

For businesses dealing with VAT, customs or excise assessments, the practical advice is straightforward: act quickly, seek advice early, and do not assume that time limits can be extended after the event.

Further Reading

Should you wish to explore furhter, some links are provided below:

• ARTG Updates
• ARTG3060 — Extension of review acceptance
• ARTG2020 — Process for indirect taxes
• Disagree with a tax decision
• Reasonable excuses
• Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
• Part V of the Value Added Tax Act 1994
• Sections 14 to 16 of the Finance Act 1994

 

HAMMAD BAIG © 2026

BARRISTER

33 BEDFORD ROW

Hammad Baig practices in the following areas: international trade, indreict tax, insolvency, commercial arbitration, public law and commercial litigation with a specific interest in Customs and Excise Law.

Further articles on topics relating to his practice areas can be read under his Insights and on his blog. Should you wish to instruct Hammad Baig then please do not hesitate to contact his clerk Geoff Carr. 

NOTICE: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.