The company at the heart of an eight-year battle with the Revenue over a £17,885.92 sterling (€27,125) VAT rebate has supported the attack by Chief Justice Mr Ronan Keane on the Revenue.

Stylo Barratt Shoes, which operates a chain of Barratt's shoe stores in the Republic, has agreed with the judge's comments.

Mr Richard Bott, Stylo's finance director, said the firm could not comprehend the Revenue's determination to pursue the issue after what it considered a clear ruling from the Appeals Commissioner.

"I could not understand the Revenue arguments at the time and why they persisted in going to the High Court," he said yesterday. "I can only agree with the judge's comments. This case has dragged on endlessly. We went to the Revenue Appeals Commissioner what seems like a lifetime ago, and it was found in our favour then and the arguments seemed pretty clear to me."

Mr Bott said the firm had consistently been supported by the Appeals Commissioner and the courts in its view that it was simply buying a premises to trade from and not a continuing business.

But the Revenue - which faces an estimated seven-figure bill for legal costs plus repayment of the VAT at issue and interest on it that will itself amount to more than the original contested sum - has won support from a leading VAT accountant.

Mr Jim Somers, of Ernst & Young, has specialised in VAT affairs both for the Revenue and subsequently in private practice.

He said the Revenue had concerns about the issue of business transfers. While stressing that it was not the case in this instance, he said Revenue had come across cases where a person selling a business charges VAT and issues a proper invoice.

They then disappear without paying the money to the Revenue. The party who had paid the VAT then naturally goes looking for a refund.

He also defended the six-year hiatus between the original appeal and the High Court action. "It may seem outrageous but it is not unexceptional in my experience," he said.

He added that the "case stated" - the papers that trigger the court action - had to be carefully worded and agreed by all parties because "everything in court hangs on the wording of the questions included at the end of the document".

The Stylo case may have been complicated by the fact that the previous owner also operated a shoe shop from the premises and that some of the staff stayed on once Stylo bought the premises.

But Mr Bott said Stylo had taken on neither stock nor debtors from the previous business, something that would happen in a business transfer.

He added that, but for his own determination not to back down, the case might well have gone the Revenue's way.

"I was determined not to give up on it," he said. "I suppose if I had left the company, it might have gone dormant."