The SFS's request to provide information without a stamp can be left unanswered

The tax legislation of Ukraine (item 73.3 of Article 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure) establishes that the controlling bodies have the right to apply to taxpayers and other subjects of information relations with a written request for submission data which is necessary for its  confirmation.

However, the form of such requests must meet certain requirements. Yes, the relevant requests must be signed by the supervisor (his deputy or authorized person) of the controlling body and must contain: the grounds for submitting the request in accordance with this clause, with the indication of the information, which confirms it; a list of requested information and a list of documents that are proposed to be provided. The request must also include the stamp of the controlling authority.

Compliance with these requirements is mandatory. Although it is not always recognized by the courts. Thus, in the case No. 826/9082/15 on the recognition of an order to carry out an inspection of the SFS, the illegal court of the first and appellate instances came to the conclusion that the actions of the controlling authority regarding the adoption of an order for conducting a documentary unscheduled on-site verification, taking into account the deficiencies assumed by the controlling authority in the written request, in particular, the absence of a seal on request, can not be an independent basis for the recognition of actions to send such a request to the taxpayer unlawful and cause its invalidity. The courts noted that failure to provide the payer with information and materials demanded by the controlling authority is the basis for the appointment of a documentary unscheduled inspection of such a payer.

However, the Supreme Court did not agree with this position. According to the position of the CAC of the Supreme Court, the shortcomings admitted by the defendant in the written request, even though the request was printed on the official form of the tax authority, with the date and the issue number, are significant. Thus, the absence of a seal on a written request sent to the controlling authority at the address of the plaintiff can not be attributed to shortcomings that are accidentally committed at their registration.

In view of the written request of the controlling body for providing information, it was executed in violation of the established procedure, and therefore the plaintiff is exempted from the obligation to respond to a specified request, which is explicitly provided for in clause 73.3 of Article 73 of the Tax Code of Ukraine (SC / CAC ruling No. 826 / 9082/15 of February 26, 2019).

Read 422 times