The mere fact of sending a tax decision does not prove that the taxpayer knew about it – Supreme Court
In disputes regarding the appeal of tax notices-decisions, the mere fact of their sending by the controlling authority to the taxpayer's tax address is not sufficient grounds to conclude that the deadline for filing a lawsuit has been missed. To resolve this issue, the court must establish when the person actually learned or objectively could have learned about the adoption of such a decision.
As noted by the Supreme Court, this conclusion was reached by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Supreme Court.
Following the results of an on-site inspection of an individual entrepreneur, the tax authority adopted two tax notices-decisions and sent them by registered mail to the taxpayer's tax address in Kharkiv. The postal shipment was returned to the controlling authority after the storage period expired.
The entrepreneur filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the tax notices-decisions, stating that he only learned about their existence after receiving the inspection materials in response to a lawyer's request. He also referred to a forced departure from Kharkiv due to missile attacks and the inability to receive postal correspondence at the tax address.
The court of first instance, after opening proceedings, left the claim without consideration due to the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit, considering that the tax notices-decisions were properly served in accordance with the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine (the tax notices-decisions were sent to the taxpayer's tax address by registered mail and were returned to the controlling authority after the storage period expired, which is sufficient to recognize the decisions as served). The appellate court agreed with this conclusion.
The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
The court noted that when deciding on compliance with the deadline for appealing to the administrative court, it is necessary to establish not only the fact of sending the tax notice-decision in accordance with the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine but also the moment when the person actually learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights.
The mere fact of sending tax notices-decisions by registered mail to the tax address is not unconditional proof that the taxpayer could realistically have learned about their existence.
The conditions of martial law, relocation due to shelling, lack of actual receipt of correspondence, and the moment of real acquaintance with the tax notices-decisions (including through a lawyer's request) require careful verification and assessment by the court.
The court emphasized that the conclusion about missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit cannot be based solely on formal confirmation of sending the correspondence. Excessive formalism in deciding the issue of compliance with the deadline for filing a lawsuit (only the fact of sending a registered letter) contradicts the principle of official clarification of all circumstances of the case and the purpose of administrative proceedings to effectively protect the rights of the person.
Ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Supreme Court dated May 28, 2026, in case No. 520/22570/25 (administrative proceeding No. K/990/6462/26).
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
