1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging by a private entrepreneur of a tax notification-decision on the application of financial sanctions for violation of the procedure for using settlement transaction registrars (RRO) during the sale of alcoholic beverages.<\/p>\n
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that a reference in the order to sub-paragraph 80.2.2 of the Tax Code of Ukraine is a sufficient legal basis for conducting an actual inspection, even without detailing the content of the information received regarding the violation.
\n – The Court emphasized that procedural deficiencies in the appointment of an inspection are not grounds for canceling tax decisions if they did not affect the validity of the conclusions of the controlling authority.
\n – Regarding the merits of the violation, the Court noted that the absence of an excise stamp barcode on a receipt is not automatic confirmation of a violation, as goods with old stamps that do not contain such codes could have been in circulation.
\n – The Court emphasized that data from the RRO Monitoring System (SOD RRO) serves only as information for verification and is not self-sufficient evidence of a violation; therefore, the tax authority is obliged to provide fiscal receipts as proper evidence.
\n – Since the courts of lower instances did not examine the actual settlement documents and did not establish whether the sold goods were indeed subject to mandatory barcode labeling, their conclusions were deemed premature.
\n – **Precedent:** The Court reaffirmed its position set forth in the ruling of March 26, 2024, in case No. 420\/9909\/23 regarding the minimum permissible volume of information in an inspection appointment order, departing from the practice that required detailed disclosure of the content of grounds in the order.<\/p>\n
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the fine in the amount of UAH 710,816.82, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for proper examination of the evidence.<\/p>\n