Court supported position of tax authorities regarding suspension/cancellation of a licenseChapter: News

Cassation court supported position of the controlling body on the legality of annulment of decision of the Court of first instance, which was allowed to incorrectly apply norms of substantive and procedural law, as a result of which the claimant's application to secure claim by prohibiting the controlling body from taking actions aimed at adopting decisions that lead to suspension/cancellation of the payer's license.

In ruling of the Cassation administrative court as a part of panel of judges of the Supreme Court as of 31.08.2023 in case № 640/14488/22 it is stated that the plaintiff did not provide any acceptable and convincing justifications that there is obvious danger of harming his rights, freedoms and interests or protection of these rights, freedoms and interests will become impossible without taking measures to secure claim after decision in the administrative case that has entered into legal force, or it will be necessary to make significant efforts and costs to renew them, which indicates groundlessness of the payer's statement about securing claim by prohibiting the controlling body from taking actions aimed at making decisions that lead to suspension/cancellation of a license issued to the payer for production of tobacco products (cigarettes with filter in the assortment) on the basis of actual audit, results of which are formalized in act, until the decision in this case becomes legally binding.

Therefore, the Cassation court concluded that the Appellate court reached correct conclusion about groundlessness of the claimant's statement to secure claim by prohibiting the controlling body from taking actions aimed at making decisions that lead to suspension/cancellation of a license issued to the claimant for production of tobacco products.

Cassation administrative court as a part of panel of judges of the Supreme Court on 31.08.2023 in case № 826/17150/18 dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal; ruling of the Sixth administrative appellate court as of 15.12.2022 was left unchanged.