1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax authority’s order to conduct a documentary scheduled on-site inspection.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim by recognizing the inspection order as illegal only in the part of the period that had already been inspected, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, indicating the following:
* The court of appeal mistakenly decided that the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2020 is not subject to re-inspection, since Article 77 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which regulates the procedure for conducting scheduled documentary inspections, does not contain provisions regarding the impossibility of conducting scheduled inspections for periods that have already been inspected.
* The court did not provide a proper legal assessment of the main basis of the claim, namely, whether the statute of limitations provided for in paragraph 102.1 of Article 102 of the Tax Code of Ukraine was observed when determining the period of activity to be inspected, taking into account the suspension of the term and the tax returns submitted by the taxpayer.
* The courts did not take into account that, according to paragraph 77.3 of Article 77 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, it is prohibited to conduct a documentary scheduled inspection for certain types of obligations to budgets, while the disputed order provides for an inspection in order to comply with the requirements of tax, currency and other legislation.
* The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling refusing to grant the application for securing the claim, as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of grounds for applying measures to secure the claim.
* **:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the previous position regarding the impossibility of appealing the appellate court’s ruling refusing to secure the claim, noting that such rulings can be reviewed in cassation procedure.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
