Subject of Dispute: Municipal Enterprise “Kharkiv Heating Networks” challenges a tax notification-decision on imposing a penalty for late payment of value-added tax.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court indicated that to apply a penalty under paragraphs 124.2 and 124.3 of the Tax Code, the controlling authority must prove the taxpayer’s intent. In this case, the inspection report did not contain any substantiation of intentional violation of tax legislation, therefore the accrued penalty is unlawful. The court emphasized that the burden of proving guilt lies specifically with the controlling authority.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions and denied the tax service’s cassation appeal, supporting the taxpayer’s position.
