Cassation appeal on the review of judicial acts in the cassation procedure against the ruling of the judicial board
To the Court of Cassation for Administrative Cases
Republic of Kazakhstan
53a, Tule bi str., Astana.
The plaintiff: IP "M A" represented by M P A
IIN 8
Almaty, md.
Representative by proxy:
Law and Law Law Firm
BIN 201240021767
79 Abylai Khan Ave., office 304, Almaty
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 708 971 78 58; +7 727 971 78 58.
The defendants:
1. Russian State Institution "Auezovsky State Revenue Department
to the district of the State Revenue Department of the city
Almaty State Revenue Committee
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan".
BIN 910740000113
Almaty city, Auezovsky district, Microdistrict 8, building 4A.
2. Russian State University Department of State Revenue for the city
Almaty State Revenue Committee
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan"
BIN 141140001547
The city of Almaty, 132 Bogenbai Batyr Street / 110 Panfilov Street.
+7 (727) 270-07-05.
CASSATION APPEAL
on the cassation review of judicial acts against the ruling of the Judicial Board 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, an administrative lawsuit was filed from IP "MA" in the person of MP (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) with demands to declare illegal and cancel the notification based on the results of desk control issued by the state revenue authority No. 6003HF400156 dated 07/24/2024. In support of the claim, it was pointed out that the notification violated the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff, was issued in violation of the norms of tax legislation, and the plaintiff also petitioned for the restoration of the missed procedural period for going to court, indicating his valid reasons for missing.
By the ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty dated March 18, 2026, the application for reinstatement of the time limit for filing an administrative claim was refused, and therefore the administrative claim was returned to the plaintiff.
Having disagreed with this ruling, the plaintiff filed a private complaint, which raised the issue of revoking the ruling of the court of first instance, restoring the time limit for applying to the court and sending an administrative claim for consideration on the merits.
By the ruling of the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Almaty City Court dated April 30, 2026, the ruling of the court of first instance remained unchanged, and the private complaint was dismissed.
The plaintiff does not agree with the judicial acts issued, considers them illegal and subject to cancellation due to a significant violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law, as well as improper application of the principles of administrative proceedings.
We believe that the courts of the first and appellate instances incorrectly determined the time of the beginning of the procedural period for filing an administrative claim, formally identifying the fact of posting a notice in the taxpayer's office with the proper communication of the administrative act to the person.
Meanwhile, in administrative law, the communication of an administrative act does not involve the formal display of the document in the information system, but the actual familiarization of the person with the administrative act to the extent that allows them to understand the content of the requirements, the legal consequences of the act and the procedure for its appeal.
In the case in question, notification No. 6003HF400156 dated July 24, 2024, posted in the taxpayer's office, 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 details, including the amount of the tax liability, the grounds for tax claims and the procedure for appealing it.
Thus, the plaintiff was not properly acquainted with the administrative act, since the published document did not allow to determine:
the content of the requirements;
the legal nature of an administrative act;
the necessity and procedure for its judicial appeal.
However, the courts of both instances avoided a legal assessment of these circumstances, pointing out that issues of legality and completeness of an administrative act are subject to investigation only when considering the dispute on its merits.
This conclusion is erroneous, since the plaintiff'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 and the beginning of the procedural period.
In fact, the courts have misinterpreted part 1 of Article 136 of the Administrative Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the APPC), since the time limit for filing an administrative claim can be calculated only from the moment the administrative act is properly communicated to the person.
A defective administrative act that does not contain the mandatory details provided for by law cannot generate legal consequences in the form of the beginning of the procedural period for its appeal.
The courts also ignored that the plaintiff acted in good faith and was not inactive. After the notification appeared, the plaintiff immediately sent a written explanation about the absence of violations of tax legislation, believing that she was implementing the procedure provided for by tax legislation to resolve the situation.
At the same time, the courts unreasonably concluded that the very fact of submitting an explanation indicates that the plaintiff has properly familiarized himself with the administrative act. Meanwhile, knowing about the existence of the notification is not the same as knowing the procedure and timing of its judicial appeal.
Moreover, the courts did not give a proper legal assessment to the plaintiff's arguments that the actions of the tax authority actually formed her belief that it was necessary to resolve the issue out of court by submitting an explanation, and also created an informed opinion about the completeness of the disputed situation.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that for a long period of time the tax authority did not take any enforcement measures, which objectively reinforced the plaintiff's belief that there was no need for additional judicial protection.
The courts have actually ignored the principles of administrative justice enshrined in the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, according to which it is the State body that is obliged to act lawfully, in good faith and ensure that the administrative act is properly communicated to the person.
Instead, the consequences of improper notification processing were completely shifted to a private individual, which contradicts the principles of legal certainty, fairness and trust in the activities of the State apparatus.
It should be particularly noted that the plaintiff filed a motion in the court of first instance to examine the electronic evidence by demonstrating the taxpayer's personal account at a court hearing in order to confirm the fact that the notification was actually displayed as a one-page incomplete document. However, this petition was actually abandoned by the courts without proper consideration and evaluation.
Thus, the courts violated the principle of a full, comprehensive and objective investigation of the circumstances of the case.
We also ask the Court of Cassation to pay attention to the fact that the lower courts have actually allowed a situation in which a state body is relieved of the obligation to properly execute an administrative act, and any defects in the notification are proposed to be assessed after the expiration of the time limit for its appeal. Such an approach contradicts the very nature of administrative justice and creates a dangerous precedent in which a defective administrative act can have negative consequences for a private individual.
According to paragraph 1, Article 169 of the CPC, the procedure for cassation appeal and proceedings before the court of cassation instance are determined by the rules of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC RK), unless otherwise established by this Code.
Based on the above, guided by the provisions of art. 169 of the CPC, paragraphs 4, paragraph 1, Article 427 and paragraphs 5, paragraph 2, Article 451 of the CPC RK,
I ASK THE JUDICIAL BOARD:
· To cancel the ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty dated March 18, 2026;
· To cancel the ruling of the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Almaty City Court dated April 30, 2026;
· To restore the missed procedural deadline for filing an administrative claim for cancellation of the notification of elimination of violations with a medium degree of risk No. 6003HF400156 dated 07/24/2024;
· Send the administrative proceedings to the court of first instance for consideration of the dispute on the merits.
With respect,
Representative by proxy: Kenesbek I.M.
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 legal 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
