Private complaint against the court ruling on the refusal to restore the deadline for filing an administrative claim
To the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases
Almaty City Court
Almaty, Almaly district, Kazybek Bi str., 66.
The plaintiff: IP "M.A" represented by M.P.A.
IIN ..
Almaty, md., d., sq. 61.
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.
PRIVATE COMPLAINT
for the determination of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of the city of Almaty
dated March 18, 2026
On March 18, 2026, the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty issued a ruling in the administrative case No. 7594-26-00-4/1057, according to which the Individual Entrepreneur "M.A" in the person of M.P.A. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), the restoration of the time limit for filing an administrative claim was refused and the administrative claim was returned.
The plaintiff does not agree with this definition, considers it illegal and subject to cancellation on the following grounds.
The Court of first instance, when resolving the issue of restoring the procedural period, committed significant violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law, as well as incorrectly applied the principles of administrative proceedings enshrined in the Administrative Procedural Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter - the APPC).
First of all, the court incorrectly determined the moment of the beginning of the procedural term. The court formally indicated that the deadline begins to flow from the moment the administrative act is brought to the attention of the plaintiff, but did not give a proper legal assessment of the circumstances of the communication of this act.
Meanwhile, in administrative law, bringing an administrative act to the attention is understood not as any notification of a person about the fact of its existence, but as bringing the act in a form that allows the person to understand its content, legal consequences and the procedure for appealing it.
In the case under consideration, the notification 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 its occurrence and the procedure for appealing.
Thus, the plaintiff was not properly acquainted with the administrative act, which excludes the possibility of recognizing the moment of posting the specified notification in the information system as the beginning of the course of the procedural period.
The Court of first instance did not investigate these circumstances and did not give them a legal assessment, limiting itself to the formal conclusion that the very fact of submitting an explanation indicates the plaintiff's awareness.
This conclusion is legally untenable, since filing an explanation in accordance with the tax legislation is not identical to exercising the right to judicial appeal of an administrative act and does not indicate that the plaintiff was aware of the procedure and timing of its appeal.
The plaintiff's explanation was sent not as a result of a conscious choice of a way to protect his rights, but based on telephone explanations from employees of the tax authority, as explicitly stated in the text of the explanation itself. After receiving the oral information, the plaintiff was put in a difficult position because she did not understand either the legal nature of the claim or the procedure for the formation of the claimed amount of tax, with which she immediately disagreed in a telephone conversation. In response, the staff of the tax authority explained that in case of disagreement, it is necessary to submit an explanation, without informing about the right and procedure for judicial appeal of the notification. Thus, by the actions of the officials of the tax authority, the plaintiff was actually oriented towards a different, non-judicial way of responding, which objectively affected the impossibility of timely realization of the right to judicial protection.
Moreover, the plaintiff acted in good faith and consistently, believing that she was complying with the requirements of the tax authority in accordance with the established procedure. This behavior is consistent with the principle of trust in the actions of a government agency and cannot entail negative consequences for the plaintiff.
The Court also failed to take into account that the tax authority had not clarified the plaintiff's right to appeal the notification, which was a significant violation of the requirements for the content of the administrative act and the principles of administrative procedure.
Additionally, it should be noted that the plaintiff also received oral explanations from employees of the tax authority, according to which she was informed about the possible conduct of a thematic audit followed by a decision. These circumstances objectively formed the plaintiff's belief that an appeal is possible only after the completion of the relevant procedures.
It should also be noted that for a long time the tax authority has not taken any enforcement measures, including the transfer of materials to bailiffs for the initiation of enforcement proceedings. This inaction or delay in administrative procedures on the part of the tax authority objectively formed the plaintiff's firm belief that the disputed situation has been resolved and does not entail further legal consequences for it.
Thus, the actions of the State body actually misled the plaintiff about the procedure for protecting her rights and prevented her from contacting the court in a timely manner.
The Court of first instance, contrary to the requirements of administrative proceedings, did not investigate these circumstances and did not give them a legal assessment.
In addition, the court has incorrectly distributed the burden of proof. In accordance with the principles of administrative legal proceedings, the obligation to prove the legality of an administrative act, as well as the circumstances of its proper communication to a person, is assigned to a State body.
At the same time, the contested ruling actually imposes on the plaintiff the obligation to prove the fact of improper familiarization with the administrative act, which contradicts the nature of the administrative process and puts a private individual in a deliberately unequal position in relation to a public authority.
Moreover, despite the burden of proof imposed on the Office of State Revenue for the Auezovsky district of the City of Almaty (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in accordance with paragraphs 1, paragraph 2, art. 129 of the APPC, the plaintiff filed a petition for the study of electronic evidence, expressed in the intention to demonstrate at a court hearing the taxpayer's personal account using technical means, in order to visually confirm the fact that the posted notice is one-page, incomplete and does not contain the mandatory details provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 114 of the Tax Code. This petition was essential for the proper resolution of the issue of the proper communication of the administrative act to the plaintiff. However, the court did not resolve this petition on its merits and actually left it without consideration, and therefore it was not given any legal assessment. Thus, the court violated the principle of a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the circumstances of the case, which affected the correctness of the adopted judicial act.
Taken together, the violations described indicate that the court's conclusion that there were no valid reasons for missing the deadline is premature and unfounded.
According to paragraph 6, Article 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), a private complaint may be filed against a court ruling on refusal to extend or restore a missed procedural period, a petition may be filed, or a prosecutor's protest may be filed.
Based on the above, guided by the provisions of Articles 168 of the CPC and 429 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 in case No. 7594-26-00-4/1057;
· To restore the missed procedural deadline for filing an administrative claim for cancellation of the notice of elimination of violations with an average degree of risk No. 6003HF400156 dated 07/24/2024.
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
