Disputes on Protesting Tax Bills Shall Be Considered in Administrative Judicial Proceedings – SC GC

The State Fiscal Service applied to court with a claim on the cancellation of a notary officer’s resolution on the refusal to perform notarial service and on obliging him to protest tax bills. In the appealed notary officer’s resolution it was noted that it might be appealed pursuant to Articles 107, 109, 118 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine by rules of ordinary proceedings.

While solving the issue of jurisdictional affiliation of the dispute, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered the following.

The request to protest tax bills was motivated with non-fulfillment of tax obligations. The plaintiff, in return, shall control the timeliness, credibility, completeness of calculation and paying of taxes, fees, payments, as well as shall perform control in the sphere of production, circulation and sale of excisable goods, shall perform the control over their proper use.

Thus, a public-legal dispute arose between the parties, connected with performing public management functions by a public authority, which by its subject matter, as well as by the nature of the disputable legal relations shall be considered in administrative judicial procedure.

Taking into account the abovementioned, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court deviated from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine noted in its resolutions of 28 March 2012 in the case No. 6-11цс12, of 18 July 2012 in the case No. 6-75цс12, of 7 November 2012 in the case No. 6-111цс12, of 14 November 2012 in the case No. 6-138цс12, of 26 December 2012 in the case No. 6-155цс12, of 16 January 2013 in the case No. 6-160цс12, of 13 February 2013 in the case No. 6-159цс12 regarding the fact that the dispute under the claim of tax inspections to a notary officer as for protesting a tax bill, which, per se, was a tax receipt, should be considered in civil judicial proceedings.

Follow the link http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/82997490 to see the full text of the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 26 June 2019 in the case No. 591/4543/16-ц (proceedings No. 14-251цс19).