{"id":8106,"date":"2025-04-10T10:48:32","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:48:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-560-20045-23-dated-03-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T10:48:32","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:48:32","slug":"case-no-560-20045-23-dated-03-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-560-20045-23-dated-03-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 560\/20045\/23 dated 03\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions of the State Tax Service regarding additional tax liabilities of LLC &#8220;Zakhid-Shliakhbudtrans&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; Previous instance courts did not verify compliance with the procedure for appointment and conducting of tax audit during the period of quarantine moratorium.<br \/>\n&#8211; The Supreme Court consistently indicates that Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 89 cannot modify the moratorium on inspections established by the Tax Code.<br \/>\n&#8211; Courts must first evaluate procedural violations, and only then examine the substance of economic transactions.<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: To cancel the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review for a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the audit procedure.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126346564\"><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 of the State Tax Service regarding additional tax liabilities of LLC &#8220;Zakhid-Shliakhbudtrans&#8221;. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; Previous instance courts did not verify compliance with the procedure for appointment and conducting of tax audit during the period of quarantine moratorium. &#8211; The&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-8106","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\/8106","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=8106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}