Vat is Included in the Sale Price unless It is Stated that It Will be Paid Separately in the Sale of Real Estate – Supreme Court Decision

Summary:

In the sales contract, it should be accepted that the VAT has been paid within the scope of this price together with the sales price, if it is not stated separately and clearly that the sales price does not include VAT; it should be proved by the plaintiff that the opposite (VAT price will be paid separately).

T.C.
Supreme

Main Number:2014/19132
Decision No:2015/6993
K. Date:12.5.2015

At the end of the trial of the cancellation of the objection between the parties, the file was examined, discussed and considered by the representatives of the parties upon the appeal of the judgment issued for the dismissal of the case for the reasons written in the Decriminalization.

decision

The plaintiff’s Attorney, his client with the company, the company agreed the sale of the estate of the defendant in eight fields and laid out on the invoice for the sale, defendant muvekkilinc 214.760-TL price and the invoice has been sent and that the defendant does not have any objection to this bill, but the respondent specified on the invoice price by cutting the amount of VAT 182.000-to pay in GBP, therefore, against the defendant Kirklareli Executive Directorate 2013/**** numbered from the file that they have started execution proceedings, the defendant’s objection, upon the pursuit had stopped, noting that the cancellation of Appeals, he demanded and sued to decide on the continuation of the follow-up and 20% execution denial compensation against the defendant.
The defendant’s attorney claimed that his client and the plaintiff had reached an agreement on the purchase and sale of 8 pieces of real estate for a price of TL 182,000, including VAT, and that the real estate was purchased with a price of TL 182,000, including VAT, and that it was not legal for the plaintiff to claim money under the name of VAT, and that the case should be dismissed and 20% compensation for badness should be decided against the plaintiff.
Made by the trial court as a result of the cost of VAT would be paid by the defendant the burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff he couldn’t provide any written proof of it, as the amount of 200 muddeabih HMK the witness in accordance with the articles of continuation, and not to rest, Kırklareli of the Land Office, dated 23.12.2011 12502 the official announcement on the subject matter of the case of immovable property by the plaintiff to the defendant a total of 182.000 TL VAT price that would be paid by the defendant in securities that are sold at a party where there is any provision, according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court 19. 03.11 of the Law Department.dated 2010 and 2010/3127 E., 2010/12338 K ., Supreme Court 19. The Law Department’s decision dated 11.06.2013 and dated 2013/8012 E., 2013/10801 K . Numbered..) the sales price does not include VAT price with VAT unless noted also that are paid under the sales price of points where it is accepted that the plaintiff’s lawsuit with the seller of the subject real property deed the trust deed 182.000 TL and sold to the defendant in return for compensation in cash, in a concrete case, the defendant and the purchaser will also pay VAT in this direction is an assumption that in the absence of a document, the plaintiff unilaterally organized by the bill, such a document does not constitute grounds for denial of trial, since it could not be proved that the plaintiff followed up with malice, it was decided to reject the defendant’s claim for compensation and the verdict was appealed by the attorneys of the parties.
According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the compelling reasons, the lack of an error in the assessment of the evidence, it was unanimously decided to approve the verdict found in accordance with the procedure and the law, rejecting all appeals that were not considered appropriate by the deputies of the parties, to collect the approval fees written below from the appellants on the day of 12.05.2015.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.