- VAT fraud involves the applicant’s contractors committing fraud, with the applicant aware or having the opportunity to know about it.
- The appellant failed to gather necessary data about JSC X and JSC Y before transactions, only checking their debts after deals were made.
- No information was provided about representatives of JSC X and JSC Y; communication was only via email without names.
- Documents continued to be issued in the name of JSC X’s deceased director, with cash payments made after his death.
- The court found it unlikely that the applicant did not verify the identity of those presenting documents for cash payments.
- The applicant should have noticed document discrepancies, such as missing stamps and signatures, and uniformity in documents.
- The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania rejected the appellant’s arguments.
Source: vatabout.com
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "Lithuania"
- Amendment to Commentary on Article 21 of the Value Added Tax Law
- Lithuania’s Fiscalization Rules for Vending Machines
- Application of Personal Income Tax Rules to VAT Payers Using the Small Business Scheme in Lithuania
- EU Finance Ministers Discuss VAT Data Access, Market Integration, Ukraine Aid, and Anti-Fraud Measures
- Commentary on the Law of Value Added Tax of the Republic of Lithuania (2004–2026)














