1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the tax authority’s decision on the compliance of the enterprise with the criteria of a risky VAT payer and the obligation to exclude the enterprise from the list of risky payers.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, stating that the decision on riskiness was made without prior monitoring of the tax invoice/adjustment calculation submitted for registration, but only based on available tax information. The appellate court overturned this decision, considering the actions of the tax authority to be lawful, since the enterprise did not provide sufficient documents to refute the riskiness of the operations. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that the procedure for determining a payer as risky has a clear sequence: first, the submission of an invoice/adjustment calculation, then monitoring, and only then a decision on riskiness. The court emphasized that the decision of the tax authority was made in violation of this procedure, since it was not established which operation and under which tax invoice was the subject of the study and recognized as risky. The court noted that the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which the defendant referred to, concerned another regulatory act that did not provide for the right to appeal the decision on riskiness, unlike the current procedure.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, granting the enterprise’s cassation appeal.
