CASSATION APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF JUDICIAL ACTS IN CASSATION PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE RULING OF THE JUDICIAL PANEL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
To the Cassation Court for Administrative Casesof the Republic of Kazakhstan
53A Tole Bi Street,Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan.
Claimant: Individual Entrepreneur “M A” ,represented by M P A
IIN 8
Almaty, Microdistrict .
Representative under Power of Attorney:
Law Firm “Zakon i Pravo”
BIN 201240021767
Office 304, 79 Abylai Khan Avenue,Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 708 971 78 58; +7 727 971 78 58.
Respondents:
Republican State Institution “State Revenue Administration for the Auezov
District of the Department of State Revenues for the City of Almaty
of the State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan”
BIN 910740000113
4A, Microdistrict 8, Auezov District,Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan.
Republican State Institution “Department of State Revenues for the City of Almaty
of the State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan”
BIN 141140001547
132 Bogenbai Batyr Street / 110 Panfilov Street,Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan.
+7 (727) 270-07-05.
CASSATION APPEAL for review in cassation proceedings of the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Almaty City Court dated April 30, 2026, and the ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty dated March 18, 2026 On February 27, 2026, Individual Entrepreneur “M A”, represented by M P A (hereinafter, the “Claimant” ), filed an administrative claim seeking recognition as unlawful and annulment of the notification based on the results of desk-based tax control issued by the state revenue authority under No. 6003HF400156 dated July 24, 2024. In support of the claim, it was stated that the notification violated the rights and legitimate interests of the Claimant and had been issued in violation of the provisions of tax legislation. The Claimant also filed a motion to reinstate the procedural time limit for applying to the court, citing valid reasons for missing the applicable time limit. By the ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty dated March 18, 2026, the motion to reinstate the time limit for filing the administrative claim was denied, and, accordingly, the administrative claim was returned to the Claimant. Disagreeing with the said ruling, the Claimant filed a private appeal seeking annulment of the ruling of the court of first instance, reinstatement of the time limit for applying to the court, and referral of the administrative claim for consideration on the merits. By the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Almaty City Court dated April 30, 2026, the ruling of the court of first instance was upheld, while the private appeal was dismissed. The Claimant disagrees with the judicial acts issued in the case and considers them unlawful and subject to annulment due to a substantial violation of substantive and procedural law, as well as the incorrect application of the principles of administrative proceedings. The courts of first and appellate instances incorrectly determined the point at which the procedural time limit for filing the administrative claim began to run, having formally equated the fact that the notification was posted in the taxpayer’s personal account with the proper communication of the administrative act to the person concerned. At the same time, under administrative law, communication of an administrative act does not mean merely the formal display of a document in an information system. Rather, it presupposes that the person has actually been given access to and has become acquainted with the administrative act to an extent sufficient to understand the substance of the requirements imposed, the legal consequences of the act, and the procedure and time limits for challenging it. In the present case, Notification No. 6003HF400156 dated July 24, 2024, posted in the taxpayer’s personal account, did not comply with the requirements of Paragraph 3 of Article 114 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as it did not contain mandatory particulars, including the amount of the tax liability, the grounds for the tax claims, and the procedure for challenging the notification. Accordingly, the Claimant was not duly informed of the administrative act, since the published document did not make it possible to determine: the substance of the requirements imposed; the legal nature of the administrative act; the necessity and procedure for judicial challenge of the administrative act. However, the courts of both instances failed to provide a legal assessment of these circumstances, stating that the issues concerning the legality and completeness of the administrative act were subject to examination only when the dispute was considered on the merits. This conclusion is erroneous, since the Claimant’s arguments concerned not only the substance of the tax dispute as such, but also the issue of proper communication of the administrative act to the person concerned and the point at which the procedural time limit began to run. In effect, the courts incorrectly interpreted Part 1 of Article 136 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “APPC” ), since the time limit for filing an administrative claim may be calculated only from the moment the administrative act has been duly communicated to the person concerned. A defective administrative act that does not contain the mandatory particulars prescribed by law cannot give rise to legal consequences in the form of commencement of the procedural time limit for challenging such act. The courts also disregarded the fact that the Claimant acted in good faith and did not remain inactive. After the notification appeared, the Claimant promptly submitted a written explanation stating that no violations of tax legislation had occurred, believing that she was exercising the procedure for resolving the situation provided for by tax legislation. At the same time, the courts unreasonably concluded that the mere submission of the explanation demonstrated that the Claimant had been duly informed of the administrative act. However, knowledge of the existence of a notification is not equivalent to knowledge of the procedure and time limits for challenging it judicially. Moreover, the courts failed to provide a proper legal assessment of the Claimant’s arguments that the actions of the tax authority had effectively led her to believe that the matter should be resolved out of court by submitting an explanation, and had also created a reasonable belief that the disputed situation had been resolved. It is additionally noteworthy that, for an extended period of time, the tax authority took no measures to enforce collection, which objectively strengthened the Claimant’s belief that there was no need for additional judicial protection. The courts effectively disregarded the principles of administrative justice enshrined in the APPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, under which a state body is required to act lawfully and in good faith and to ensure that an administrative act is duly communicated to the person concerned. Instead, the consequences of the improper drafting and issuance of the notification were entirely placed upon the private party, which is contrary to the principles of legal certainty, fairness, and legitimate trust in the activities of public authorities. Ниже — перевод в том же формальном юридическом стиле, с сохранением ссылок на АППК и ГПК РК. It should be specifically emphasized that, before the court of first instance, the Claimant filed a motion requesting the examination of electronic evidence by demonstrating the taxpayer’s personal account during the court hearing, for the purpose of confirming that the notification was actually displayed in the form of a single-page incomplete document. However, this motion was effectively left by the courts without proper consideration and assessment. Thus, the courts violated the principle of a complete, comprehensive, and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. We also respectfully request the court of cassation to take into consideration that the lower courts have effectively created a situation in which a state body is relieved of its obligation to properly prepare and issue an administrative act, while any defects in the notification are to be assessed only after the time limit for challenging such notification has expired. Such an approach is contrary to the very nature of administrative justice and creates a dangerous precedent whereby a defective administrative act may give rise to adverse legal consequences for a private party. Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 169 of the APPC, the procedure for filing a cassation appeal and proceedings before the court of cassation shall be governed by the rules of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “CPC RK” ), unless otherwise provided by this Code. Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to Article 169 of the APPC, Subparagraph 4) of Paragraph 1 of Article 427 and Subparagraph 5) of Paragraph 2 of Article 451 of the CPC RK, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE JUDICIAL PANEL TO: Annul the ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty dated March 18, 2026;Annul the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases of the Almaty City Court dated April 30, 2026;Reinstate the missed procedural time limit for filing an administrative claim seeking annulment of Notification No. 6003HF400156 dated July 24, 2024, on the elimination of violations classified as involving a medium degree of risk;Remit the administrative case to the court of first instance for consideration of the dispute on the merits. Respectfully, Representative under Power of Attorney: I.M. Kenesbek
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation . Our lawyers are ready to assist you in l egal advice , drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
