Case No. 120/19027/23 dated 07/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the following: 1) no retail trade or cash settlements were carried out at the oil depot, therefore, the requirements for cash register use do not apply to this facility; 2) the company maintained proper accounting of petroleum products in accordance with established rules; 3) the tax authority did not prove the fact of violations and incorrectly applied the legislation norms regarding liquefied gas accounting.
Case No. 160/8007/24 dated 07/01/2025
The court concluded that the prosecutor has the right to represent the state’s interests regarding claims to declare the State Architectural and Construction Inspection’s inaction unlawful, to declare the permit issuance decision unlawful and to cancel it – since there is no other authorized body that could file such claims in court. At the same time, regarding the claim to stop construction works, the prosecutor does not have the right to apply to court, as such powers belong to the state architectural and construction control body.
Case No. 160/26312/23 dated 07/01/2025
The subject of the dispute concerns the tax authority’s refusal to open an appellate proceeding due to missing the appeal deadline. The court was guided by the following: 1) lack of funds for the state body to pay court fees is not a valid reason for missing the appellate appeal deadline; 2) the tax authority did not provide evidence that it took all possible measures to timely pay court fees; 3) the repeated appellate complaint was filed with significant delay (29 days after receiving the order returning the first complaint), which indicates an unscrupulous attitude towards procedural obligations. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling to refuse opening an appellate proceeding on the tax authority’s complaint.
Case No. 160/7847/24 dated 07/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the following: 1) the company indeed submitted declarations with zero1) indicators during December 2022 – November 2023; 2) the tax authority had all legal grounds for cancellation of registration in accordance with paragraph 184.1 of the Tax Code; 3) the plaintiff’s reference to court decisions regarding tax invoice registration for other periods does not affect the legality of the contested decision.
Case No. 120/19027/23 dated 07/01/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of legal assistance costs in the amount of 114,000 UAH from the tax authority in favor of LLC “Avantazh-7” for a won case on cancellation of tax notifications-decisions. When making a decision, the court was guided by the following arguments: 1) legal assistance costs must be real, necessary, and reasonable; 2) the amount of costs must be proportionate to the complexity of the case, the time spent by the lawyer, and the volume of services provided; 3) the claimed amount of 114,000 UAH is overstated given the actual volume of services provided and the complexity of the case. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances on partial satisfaction of claims and recovery of 50,000 UAH of legal assistance costs instead of the claimed 114,000 UAH.
Case No. 308/530/21 dated 06/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff’s representative Kukarka K.S., being properly notified about court hearings, twice did not appear (06.02.2024 and 26.02.2024), did not submit an application for consideration of the case in her absence, and her petitions for postponing the hearings did not contain proper evidence of valid reasons for non-appearance. The court also took into account that notification of the representative is considered notification of the party itself, and the representative’s powers were not restricted in the power of attorney.
Case No. 460/7502/23 dated 07/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the tax authority twice filed an appellate complaint without paying the court fee, while not providing proper evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline. The mere fact of martial law and lack of funds cannot be an unconditional basis for reinstating the deadline without proving specific circumstances.
