1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of procurement contract clauses as invalid and the recovery of unduly included VAT.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of previous courts, stating that for VAT exemption of supply of goods for defense purposes, it is not sufficient to merely refer to a mobilization training program or the fact of transferring the goods to a military unit. The court departed from its previous position. It is necessary to have either an end-user certificate or clearly define in the contract that the end recipient is a specific entity listed in the Tax Code. The absence of such documentary evidence means that the inclusion of VAT in the value of the goods is not unfounded. The court emphasized that the determining factor is documentary confirmation of the identity of the end recipient of goods, the operations of import into the customs territory of Ukraine and supply on the customs territory of Ukraine of which are subject to VAT exemption in accordance with subparagraph 5 of paragraph 32 of subsection 2 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and cannot be a formality because operations, in particular, regarding the supply of goods, the end recipient of which does not correspond to the specified list, excludes the possibility of exempting such operations from VAT taxation on the basis of this rule.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances and denied the claim for recognition of contract clauses as invalid and recovery of VAT.
