A person authorized to impose value-added tax on imports of goods

The value-added tax on the import of goods shall not be collected by the customs collector in the same manner as customs duties are collected, but shall be authorized by the competent

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu54201 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

SiAAA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

December 16, 2015

January 20, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Each disposition of the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on March 2, 2012, value-added tax of KRW 525,120,140 for the first term of 207 and value-added tax of KRW 97,630,450 for the second term of 207 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s new argument in the trial is identical to the part on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition under Paragraph (2) below to the determination of the new argument in the trial; and (b) thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked because it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) According to Article 23(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the value-added tax on the import of goods shall be collected by the head of a customs office, not the head of a customs office, in the same manner as customs duties are collected, but the Defendant made the instant disposition without authority. In addition, in a case where the Customs Act conflicts with the Framework Act on National Taxes pursuant to Article 4 of the Customs Act, the provisions of the Customs Act preferentially apply, and according to Article 21 of the Customs Act, the exclusion period for imposition of value-added tax on the import of goods imposed and collected by the head of a customs office shall be two years from the date on which customs duties can be levied. The instant disposition was conducted with the lapse of two years. (2) The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on the import of goods on which the head of a customs office bears value-added tax, and deducted it as an input tax amount.

B. Determination

1) Whether the imposition authority of the instant disposition and the exclusion period are expired

On the other hand, the instant disposition is not subject to the imposition and collection of value-added tax on the import of goods, but subject to the corrective disposition of value-added tax on the first term portion of 2007 and the second term of 2007 reported by the Plaintiff (the instant tax invoice is only the portion of the input tax deduction from the above value-added tax reported by the Plaintiff). Article 21 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business shall investigate the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of tax to be paid or the amount of tax to be refunded, and determine or correct it.

In addition, according to Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007), where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the exclusion period for the imposition of a national tax is ten years from the date on which the relevant national tax can be imposed. As seen earlier, the instant disposition was made on March 2, 2012 on the ground that the pertinent tax invoice was partially different from the facts on the grounds that the pertinent tax invoice was not deducted from the output tax amount, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff had not passed since April 15, 2007 or December 25, 2007 on the day following the date on which the import declaration was filed with the head of a customs office.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the parties to the transaction with good faith and negligence are the parties

According to the above facts, the plaintiff entered into a equipment investment and lease agreement with the D system on the instant machinery, and made an import declaration on behalf of the D system on behalf of the D system, and was directly delivered with the instant machinery, and thus, the plaintiff was aware of the relevant transaction. Thus, the plaintiff was the D system, which was known that the person who is to be entered in the tax invoice of this case was the party, or was negligent in not knowing that it was erroneous as the plaintiff.

Even if the Plaintiff determined that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff due to his own interpretation, this does not constitute a justifiable ground that is merely merely a lot or misunderstanding of laws and subordinate statutes, and even if the customs collector received the Plaintiff’s import declaration and issued the instant tax invoice, it is due to the Plaintiff’s mistake, and thus, it cannot be said that there exists a justifiable ground for the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.