The 17th Arbitration & Appeals Court refused to let Oil Plant appeal of a decision made by Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court: the latter had ruled that there were no grounds for declaring the regional tax inspectorate’s refusal to offer the plaintiff a 1.7m RUR tax rebate invalid, the website for Russia’s Supreme Arbitration Court states.

Oil Plant appealed to Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court, asking to declare the regional tax inspectorate’s refusal to offer the plaintiff a 1.7m RUR tax rebate (Provision 56 dated October 7, 2011) invalid; the tax rebate was related to the plant’s tax declaration for the first quarter of 2011 (1,792,424 RUR); the plaintiff also wanted the inspectorate’s refusal to compensate them for the VAT relating to the same declaration (Provision 47 dated October 7, 2011) to be declared invalid.

The tax inspectorate argued that Oil Plant provided its contract with OOO Marketing Center as the grounds for the tax rebate, but the said contract appeared to be only titulary. The company in question has been promoting the plant’s produce in various parts of Russia since 2009, and the contract has been renewed automatically on an annual basis.

The tax inspectorate decided that the contractor had never actually conducted any advertising campaigns for the oil plant, and that the report provided was not, in fact, truthful or accurate.

The court supported the defendant’s arguments, and this ruling was backed by the 17th Appeals Court.