Cash registers and on-site tax audits: the Supreme Court shows where the tax service gets it wrong

The Supreme Court has systematized current case law in disputes involving RRO/PRRO cash register systems and on-site business tax audits for the period from October 2024 through August 2026.

This contains an important point for businesses.

The mere fact that an on-site audit was conducted or that the tax authority issued an audit report does not automatically mean that the State Tax Service’s penalty is lawful.

The Supreme Court’s case law addresses, among other things:

– whether there were lawful grounds for conducting an on-site audit;
– how violations during payment transactions must be proven;
– the State Tax Service’s use of data from the RRO Data Accounting System;
– mandatory details of a fiscal receipt;
– the application of promotional prices and discounts;
– business liability for violations of RRO/PRRO cash-register rules.

For businesses, this means one thing: the results of an on-site audit and tax penalties must be assessed not only by reference to the alleged violation itself, but also by examining how the tax authority ordered and conducted the audit and what evidence it used to support its conclusions.

In practice, procedural violations during an audit or insufficient evidence may constitute grounds for overturning tax decisions.

This is particularly relevant to retail, HoReCa, petrol stations, pharmacies, online stores, and other businesses that process a large volume of payment transactions.

Therefore, after an on-site audit, the key question is not only: “What did the State Tax Service find?”

It is also: “Did it find it lawfully, and can it prove it?”

Seek legal advice now rather than needing legal representation later.

Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at WINNER Law Firm, PhD in Law