Judgment Panels insist on invoking the summary under
Analysis to deny the right to monetary correction, even in cases where the tax administration exceeds the legal period of 360 days to assess the request for reimbursement. This is the case, for example,handed down after the consideration of Repetitive Topic No.sometimes invoking the content of Precedent No. 125 of the Carf (pure and simple), sometimes stating, based on the isolated and mistaken interpretation of STJ precedents, that the unjustified resistance of the Tax Authorities only remains characterized when it is necessary to adopt of some judicial measure aimed at recognizing the right to appropriation of credits.It is interesting to note that, regarding IPI credits, this same panel recognizes the possibility of monetary correction in cases where the Tax Authorities exceed the 360-day period . The difference, however, is that, in relation to this tax, Carf has already published a summary expressly recognizing the right to update (Summary No.Behaviors EX Mobile Phone Numbers like this reveal the relevance of canceling Carf Precedent. at least, its adequacy, since decisions such as those handed down by the 1st Ordinary Panel of the 2nd Chamber of the 3rd Judgment Section only contribute to increasing uncertainty and legal uncertainty which, unfortunately, is already a characteristic of Brazilian tax litigation.
https://www.brazdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/seo-758264_1280-300x150.jpg
One cannot lose sight of the fact that the reluctance of some counselors to apply the theses established by the higher courts, in addition to representing a potential liability for the State itself (reimbursement of procedural expenses and payment of fees, for example), also matters bring the efficiency of public administration into disrepute and end up subjecting taxpayers in an equivalent legal situation to different tax treatments, in disagreement with equality. In f of the 1st Ordinary Panel of the 2nd Chamber of the 3rd Carf Judgment Section.
頁:
[1]