{"id":5416,"date":"2025-02-16T09:24:34","date_gmt":"2025-02-16T07:24:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-320-13174-21-dated-06-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-16T09:24:34","modified_gmt":"2025-02-16T07:24:34","slug":"case-no-320-13174-21-dated-06-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-320-13174-21-dated-06-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 320\/13174\/21 dated 06\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition as Unlawful and Cancellation of Tax Notifications-Decisions Issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv Oblast Regarding the Change of Single Tax Payer Status of the Agricultural Enterprise PJSC &#8220;Malynove&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The Supreme Court considers that previous court decisions have significant procedural and substantive deficiencies in evidence assessment.<br \/>\n2. Courts of previous instances must thoroughly verify whether PJSC &#8220;Malynove&#8221; is a direct agricultural producer or merely formally owns property.<br \/>\n3. The issue of agricultural product sales, particularly chicken manure, and the involvement of third parties in the production process requires careful verification.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for comprehensive and complete investigation of the case circumstances.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125113045\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition as Unlawful and Cancellation of Tax Notifications-Decisions Issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv Oblast Regarding the Change of Single Tax Payer Status of the Agricultural Enterprise PJSC &#8220;Malynove&#8221;. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Supreme Court considers that previous court decisions have significant procedural&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5416","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5416","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5416"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5416\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5416"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5416"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5416"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}