With this application the
Defender challenges the fact that the Tax Code does not provide a flexible
mechanism for imposing fines for violating the rules for the use of cash
registers, and fixed fines are recorded without taking into consideration the
circumstances of the offence.
This is the case in
relation to which the Constitutional Court rejected the application of the
Defender, and had not taken a decision for the reason that the votes of the
Judges of the Court were equally distributed. However, this does not constitute
a barrier to reapply to the Court about the same issue.
The violations of
Constitutional rights in this sphere are ongoing.
This refers to Article
416 (1-5.1) of the Tax Code, according to which the organization, sole
proprietor, or notary is fined 300.000 Drams for the lack of Cash Control
Machines (CCMs), while an amount of 1.000.000 Drams are imposed for providing
catering activities in a public catering facility. That is, the fines are
predetermined by the tax body, from which there are no exemptions.
In particular, fines are
imposed in a general term; they are imposed without taking into consideration
the turnover of the business entity engaged in entrepreneurial activity. Fines are imposed when violations are
detected from the first time, without taking into consideration the objective
and subjective factors of the violation.
The high level of fines
is problematic, which in contrast to large organizations that have been
operating for years, puts new and/or small organizations in a difficult
economic situation, and for some businesses it even leads to the cessation of
entrepreneurial activities.
According to the position
of the Human Rights Defender, the above-mentioned situation does not meet the
constitutional requirement to guarantee economic and entrepreneurial activity. This in its turn leads to the disproportionate
interference by the tax bodies in the constitutional right to engage in
economic, including entrepreneurial activities.
The Defender notes that the
not taking of a decision on this case by
the Constitutional Court was an opportunity to resend an application to the
Court, challenging the possibility of not taking a decision on case already
accepted for consideration in the Court, when the votes are equally distributed
in the Court.
Հայերեն
