Such a conclusion was made by the Supreme Court in a ruling of 08.04.2019 in the case No. 810/4559/15.

In this case, the company appealed to the Large Taxpayer Office of the SFS, in which it asked to admit illegal and cancel the tax notice-decision.

To substantiate the claims, the company noted the erroneous conclusions of the tax authority about the understatement by the plaintiff of the amount of value added tax payable to the budget, as the company's contractual entities in tax reporting of tax liabilities resulting from business transactions with the plaintiff can not be a ground for deprivation of the right on the tax credit of the latter.

The tax authority in the act of verification and in the course of the court hearing did not question the authenticity of the data containing the said primary documents, nor did it indicate the non-conformity of the primary accounting documents with the requirements of the current tax legislation, in particular, the absence of mandatory requisites at that time as according to the analysis of the documents received from the plaintiff, the courts have not detected deviations in their composition.

In addition, the respondent (which provisions of Part 2 of Article 71 of the Ukrainian Cassation of Ukraine have a duty to prove the lawfulness of their decision) during the consideration of the case, not provided any valid and admissible evidence, there is no evidence of the existence of circumstances and grounds that would indicate on the violation of the tax lawsuit by the plaintiff and the existence of which would lead to the non-recognition of the plaintiff's right to generate appropriate tax benefits.

The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances that the defendant's findings regarding the violation of the tax law by the plaintiff regarding the formation of amounts of the tax credit on value added tax are denied by properly executed documents, and the circumstances regarding failure by the contractor of the claimant in the tax reporting amounts of tax liabilities, arising from the fact of execution of contracts with the plaintiff can not be considered as proof of the latter's unfairness.

That is, if the counterparty has not fulfilled its obligation to pay tax to the budget, this does not constitute a reason for depriving the taxpayer of the right to reimbursement of VAT in the event that the latter has fulfilled all the conditions provided for by law for such a reimbursement and has the necessary documentary evidence of the amount of his tax a loan.

It should be noted that the above corresponds to the position set forth by the Supreme Court of Ukraine earlier in the ruling No. 21-47а10 of 31.01.2011 in the case of invalidation of the tax notice-decision.