An Appeals Court has confirmed a previous judgement by the Administrative Revision Tribunal which had ordered the Director General (VAT Dept) to submit the entire file that led to a tax estimate that is being contested by a company. 

For the past years, the VAT Department had been refusing to grant taxpayers access to the contents of their files by refusing to exhibit its files in the course of proceedings. In a tax case the onus of proof is on the taxpayer but when taxpayers were asking the tax department to submit a copy of their files in court, the tax departments were refusing to do so.  Most of the tribunal's cases had been stuck on this point. Today's judgment comes after two years of legal battles over points of procedure.

In 2013 the company in question had filed a case before the Tribunal after it disagreed with the VAT Department's estimate on taxes owed. The company had requested that the entire file the department had compiled during its investigations be presented so as to allow it a fair chance of making its case. The Director General had objected, saying that all the necessary information had been submitted with his replies. The Tribunal had upheld the company's request but the Director General appealed that decision.

Now, two years down the line, an Appeals Court, presided by Magistrate Edwina Grima has confirmed the Tribunal's decision.

The court said complainants are required by law to prove their case however this was difficult to do when not all the necessary documentation was presented. This difficulty also arises from the fact that another part of the law says that any person, apart from the commissioner, who was falls under the Tax Act cannot be brought to testify unless called to do so by the commissioner.

The court noted that the documentation presented by the Director General included the VAT Inspectors' report that led to the contested estimate. Although this was a positive step, the court said this did not provide all the information needed by the claimant to satisfy the burden of proof. This also means that the right to a fair trial was not being guaranteed or safeguarded.

All parts should be granted access to the same information, the court said, noting that ordinary citizens are almost certainly at a disadvantage when taking on government departments because these have better means at their disposal.

The court said the entire file should be produced and the Director General (VAT) has no right to decide which documents should be made accessible and which ones should not. This goes against Article 3(2)(c) and (d) of Chapter 490. It has already been established in the law that public authorities are required to present any relevant documents requested by a plaintiff not only for the sake of the correct and transparent administration but also for the principle of 'equality of arms' to be respected.

The court said that the Director General (VAT) is, as such, required by law to grant access to all files relevant to the case. It dismissed the department's argument that the file should not be published in its entirety because it included certain documents that were not intended for public consumption.

It also said that that the withholding of any information that can aid a complainant in court proceedings goes against Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court also noted that personal files held by the departments are property of the citizens. It argued that, if granted access to the files, the claimants could, in some cases, realise that they are wrong and stop the procedures, avoiding unnecessary time wasting.

The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision given by the Administrative Revision Tribunal in 2013. The company's case can now continue after being stalled for two years.

Lawyer Robert Attard argued the case.