{"id":7402,"date":"2025-03-27T10:19:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:19:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-160-3530-24-dated-20-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:19:28","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:19:28","slug":"case-no-160-3530-24-dated-20-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-160-3530-24-dated-20-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 160\/3530\/24 dated 20\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition as Unlawful and Cancellation of Tax Notification-Decision on Applying Penalties for Late Registration of Tax Invoices.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court established that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied substantive law provisions when considering the case. In particular, the court drew attention to the need for a differentiated approach to each tax invoice, taking into account:<br \/>\n&#8211; Specifics of legal regulation during martial law<br \/>\n&#8211; Taxpayer&#8217;s ability to register invoices in a timely manner<br \/>\n&#8211; Presence of force majeure circumstances due to military aggression<br \/>\n&#8211; Correctness of calculating penalty sanctions<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous judicial instances and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of all case circumstances.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126003968\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition as Unlawful and Cancellation of Tax Notification-Decision on Applying Penalties for Late Registration of Tax Invoices. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied substantive law provisions when considering the case. In particular, the court drew attention to the need for a&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-7402","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\/7402","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=7402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}