Rozsudek NSS k dokladům pro účely spotřebních daní

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court on documents for excise duty purposes

In its judgment[1], the SAC ruled on the proof of taxation of excise goods, which were released for consumption. Usually, taxation is proved by a tax document, a sales receipt or a transport document pursuant to section 5 of the Excise Duty Act ("EDA"). These documents have the statutory requirements.

During an inspection operation the tax administrator intercepted a vehicle carrying diesel fuel. The driver presented a transport document (and delivery notes). However, the tax administrator discovered that the volume of diesel stated on the document differed from the actual volume of diesel stored in the vehicle at the time of the inspection (the driver then documented the difference with another delivery note) and that the destination indicated on the document was not determined with a sufficient certainty. Therefore, according to the tax administrator, the submitted document was not a document issued in accordance with Section 5 of the EDA, he confiscated the diesel and decided to forfeit it to the State.

However, according to the Supreme Administrative Court, the submitted documents, even though they had formal deficiencies, did not prevent the possibility of individualizing and identifying the goods. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the transport document "did not exist"; a more appropriate penalty here, according to the SAC, could be a fine for non-compliance with a non-monetary obligation under the Tax Code (and not forfeiture of the goods).

However, with more serious deficiencies in the documents issued, the court's conclusion might not be as lenient. It is therefore advisable to always check that the transport (but also the storage) of the excise goods is carried out with a correctly issued document compliant with the EDA.

If you have any questions, please contact the authors of this article or the members of the EY team with whom you usually work.

Authors:

Jakub Kašuba

Pavol Bezek

[1] Judgment 3 Afs 76/2021 - 42