{"id":7905,"date":"2025-04-06T10:07:43","date_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:07:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-580-3134-22-dated-31-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-06T10:07:43","modified_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:07:43","slug":"case-no-580-3134-22-dated-31-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-580-3134-22-dated-31-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 580\/3134\/22 dated 31\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the controlling authority during the moratorium on conducting inspections during the quarantine period.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; Paragraph 52-2 of Subsection 10 of Section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine established a moratorium on conducting inspections during quarantine.<br \/>\n&#8211; Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 89 on reducing the moratorium period cannot modify the norms of the Tax Code.<br \/>\n&#8211; The court clearly indicated that an inspection conducted during the moratorium does not create legal consequences and is illegal.<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: The cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy Oblast was left without satisfaction, and the appellate court&#8217;s resolution on cancellation of tax notifications-decisions was left unchanged.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126274634\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the controlling authority during the moratorium on conducting inspections during the quarantine period. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; Paragraph 52-2 of Subsection 10 of Section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine established a moratorium on conducting inspections during quarantine.&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-7905","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\/7905","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=7905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7905\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}