Court confirmed legality of decision taken by the commission on registration suspension of tax invoice/adjustment calculation

Cassation court supported the controlling authority’s position regarding legality of decision taken by the commission on registration suspension of tax invoice/adjustment calculation, which decides on registration of tax invoice/adjustment calculation in the Unified register of tax invoices or refusal of such registration in the Unified register of tax invoices, since adjustment calculation is submitted by the taxpayer who meets Paragraph 8 of the Taxpayer's risk criteria.  

Courts established that the plaintiff submitted to the tax authority for registration in the Unified register of tax invoices adjustment calculation of quantitative and value indicators to the tax invoice. The specified calculation was delivered to the controlling authority, document was accepted, but in accordance with Paragraph 201.16 Article 201 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, registration was stopped. Taxpayer, who submitted for registration tax invoice/adjustment calculation in the Unified register of tax invoices, meets Paragraph 8 of the Taxpayer's risk criteria, is requested to provide explanation and copies of documents to confirm information specified in tax invoice/adjustment calculation for consideration of making decision on registration/refusal of registration of tax invoice/adjustment calculation in the Unified register of tax invoices.

Therefore, registration of the claimant's adjustment calculation was suspended on grounds that the taxpayer meets Paragraph 8 of the Taxpayer's risk criteria. It was suggested to provide explanations and/or copies of documents sufficient to make decision on registration of tax invoice/adjustment calculation in the Unified register of tax invoices.

According to the certificate from protocol of the tax authority’s commission for work with major taxpayers on registration suspension of tax invoice/adjustment calculation in the Unified register of tax invoices, the refusal reason to register adjustment calculation was failure to submit any primary document (consignment note for the product return and its posting in stock), which would confirm the product return. In addition, no settlement (payment) documents were provided.

The Supreme Court agrees with conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the fact that documents submitted by the plaintiff cannot be considered sufficient to confirm operation and to register calculation adjustment issued by the plaintiff to the counterparty.

The claimant's reference to return invoice as a proof that products have been returned is inadmissible in view of provisions of Part 2 of Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine "On accounting and financial reporting in Ukraine" № 996-XIV as of 16.07.1999, according to which primary documents can be made in paper or electronic form and must have the following mandatory requisites, in particular: positions and surnames (except for primary documents, requirements for which are established by the National Bank of Ukraine) of persons responsible for implementation of economic operation and correctness of its registration; personal signature or other data that make it possible to identify person who participated in the implementation of economic operation.

Absence of the specified mandatory requisites on the indicated invoice proves its non-compliance with requirements of Part 2 of Article 74 and Part 1 of Article 94 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

Therefore, Cassation administrative court as a part of the Supreme Court on 02.07.2024 in case № 440/5004/23 dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal; decision of Poltava district administrative court as of 29.11.2023 and decision of the Second appeal administrative court as of 02.04.2024 were left unchanged.