A TOP executive who paid £846,000 too much tax by mistake yesterday failed in an Appeal Court bid to get his money back.

Revenue and Customs admits former Matalan Plc chief executive, Angus Monro, paid the tax in error and the cash was never “due” – but still refused point blank to repay him.

The tax authorities’ stance was, in February this year, backed by the Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Andrew Morritt, who said he could only offer Mr Monro his “considerable sympathy”.

In the first case of its kind, the businessman challenged the decision in the Court of Appeal, insisting the Taxman’s refusal to hand over his money amounted to a violation of his human rights.

However, three top judges yesterday brought Mr Monro’s legal campaign to a grinding halt and he was left with nothing to show for his efforts but a six-figure legal costs bill.

Mr Monro, of Prestbury, Cheshire, who ran the giant Skelmersdale-based clothing retailer between 1996 and 2001, paid the tax after a lucrative share deal, but only later realised he had paid too much.

But, despite accepting he had unwittingly made an error – which emerged after judges ruled on an unrelated test case – the Taxman has ever since refused to refund him.

In February, Sir Andrew Morritt accepted Revenue and Customs’ arguments that, under Section 33 of the 1970 Taxes Management Act, no refund was due to Mr Monro because the overpayment was made in line with the “generally prevailing” accountancy practise at the time.

Challenging the judge’s ruling yesterday, Michael Sherry, for Mr Monro, said retaining Mr Monro’s money was neither “proportionate, nor justifiable” and breached his private property rights, protected by the Human Rights Act, he told the Appeal Court.

However, Lady Justice Arden, sitting with Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Longmore, yesterday ruled that Mr Monro could have no legal complaint.

With interest, the sum claimed by Mr Monro came to well over £1m.

The appeal judge accepted Revenue and Customs arguments that the statutory limits imposed on tax repayments, in such cases, are justified by the “disruption to public finances” which would result from large numbers of reimbursement claims.

She ruled that Parliament – by creating a statutory regime for reimbursement of tax overpayments – had intended to create a “specific remedy” for taxpayers and that, complete with the time limits that apply to it, “superseded and displaced” Mr Monro’s common law rights.

Also rejecting claims Mr Munro’s human rights had been breached, the judge said: “A wide margin of discretion must be allowed to national authorities in the determination of policy in relation to claims to recover tax.”