The amount of the state duty on non-property claims
During the generalization, the question arose about the amount of the state fee for non-property claims, for each claim, or in general for filing a claim of a non-property nature? According to paragraph 2 of Article 535 of the Tax Code, for statements of claim containing both property and non-property claims, a state fee is charged at the same time, established for statements of claim of a property nature and for statements of claim of a non-property nature. Within the meaning of this rule, if several interrelated non-property claims are combined in an application filed with the court, then each claim is subject to payment of a state fee. The practice in some regions of demanding payment of state duty in general for a non-property claim, regardless of the number of claims, is not entirely correct. At the stage of making an application or when resolving a dispute on the merits, the judge (court) should determine whether each of the stated non-property claims is independent or actually they represent the grounds for the claim (for example, challenging actions to convene a general meeting if there is a requirement to declare illegal the decision of the general meeting) or the method of execution (for example, de-registration when filing an eviction claim) and have no independent meaning. The amount of the state fee should be determined based on the number of independent requirements.
The amount of the state duty on non-property claims
For example, when filing a claim for recognizing a supplier as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement and terminating the contract, the plaintiff pays a state fee of 50% of the MCI for each claim. However, local courts do not always comply with the specified requirements of the law. For example, according to the claim of JSC "A" against N., akimat of Ye. district for invalidation of the decision of the general meeting of participants of LLP "B", resolutions of Akimat, etc. the plaintiff paid a state fee in the amount of 1,135 tenge as for one non-property claim. In fact, five non-property claims were made in the case, each of which was subject to payment of a state fee when filing a claim. The court accepted the claim without additional payment of the state fee, but when making a decision, the amount of the state fee in the amount of 4,995 tenge was deducted from the plaintiff to the state income. The analysis showed that there is no uniform practice in the courts for collecting state fees in cases of property release from seizure. Thus, subparagraph 7) of paragraph 1 of Article 535 of the Tax Code explicitly stipulates that a state fee of 50 percent of the monthly calculation index is levied on claims for the release of property from seizure.
In accordance with paragraph 5 of the NP, a state fee is charged for each claim separately for claims that include several non-property claims. Also, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the said regulatory resolution, lawsuits and applications filed with the court may contain several independent claims, each of which is subject to a state fee. When a claim is filed against one or more defendants, the state fee is calculated according to non-property claims for each claim separately. Taking into account the above norms, when applying to the court with demands for the lifting of several arrests, the state fee must be paid for each arrest warrant as a separate non-property claim. Since August 2016, for claims for the release of property from seizure in local courts in Astana, the state fee has been calculated for each contested seizure order as a separate non-property claim, which complies with the requirements of the law. Meanwhile, in judicial practice, there are cases when the plaintiff claims to release property from seizure and encumbrances imposed by several decisions of bailiffs and dozens of decisions of tax authorities to restrict the disposal of property. In some cases, courts require payment of a state fee depending on the number of encumbrances, in others – based on the seizure or encumbrance of the same object by different authorities or by the same authority in order to secure a claim in one case – as for one claim.
For example: by the decision of the Council of Economic Cooperation of North Kazakhstan Region dated October 28, 2016, the claims of P. against the State Revenue Administration for G. P., T LLP, and the State Revenue Department for the release of property from encumbrances were satisfied. The court released two vehicles from encumbrances: Kamaz 5511, state number T300AR, built in 1987, and trailer 2PS 8550, state number 4385 TA, built in 1989. The issue of the distribution of court costs was not resolved by the court of first instance. Due to the presence of tax arrears of the debtor of T LLP, the tax authorities issued 11 decisions on restrictions on the disposal of property. By the decision of the Judicial Board for civil cases of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court dated January 11, 2017, the decision of the court of first instance remained unchanged. At the same time, the judicial board recovered in equal shares from the State State Revenue Administration for the city of P., LLP "T" in favor of P. the costs of paying the state fee in the amount of 8,488 tenge. The refund of the state duty collected from the tax authorities was made by the court in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 548 of the Tax Code. That is, in collecting a refund of the state fee in favor of the plaintiff, the judicial board proceeded from the number of restrictions imposed on the same vehicles. However, according to a similar claim, A. to the State Revenue Administration for the City of P., LLP "T" on the release of property from seizure, the state duty was refunded to the plaintiff by the court of first instance in the amount of 1,061 tenge, although the circumstances of the dispute in this case are similar to the previously mentioned example; the plaintiff requested to release from encumbrances a car on which eight encumbrances were imposed in the form of eight decisions one tax authority on the restriction in the disposal of property. We believe that the practice of the Astana city courts on this issue seems to be correct.
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
