{"id":7366,"date":"2025-03-27T10:04:49","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:04:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-120-4999-24-dated-20-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:04:49","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:04:49","slug":"case-no-120-4999-24-dated-20-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-120-4999-24-dated-20-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 120\/4999\/24 dated 20\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging a Tax Notification-Decision on Applying Penalties for Late Registration of Tax Invoices.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The court deviates from previous practice and clearly defines that the &#8220;COVID&#8221; moratorium on penalties does not apply during martial law.<\/p>\n<p>2. The provisions of paragraphs 89, 90 of subsection 2 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine do not have retroactive effect and do not apply to legal relations that arose before their entry into force.<\/p>\n<p>3. Paragraph 11 of subsection 10 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine does not change the temporal boundaries of the new norms, but only indicates the application of a reduced penalty amount within the same legal norm.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and denied the administrative claim of LLC &#8220;Construction and Installation Firm &#8220;Etalon-Bud&#8221;, leaving the tax notification-decision in force.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126004105\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging a Tax Notification-Decision on Applying Penalties for Late Registration of Tax Invoices. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court deviates from previous practice and clearly defines that the &#8220;COVID&#8221; moratorium on penalties does not apply during martial law. 2. The provisions of paragraphs 89, 90 of subsection 2 of section&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-7366","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\/7366","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=7366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}