Summary:
In the sales contract, it is also necessary to accept that VAT is also paid within the scope of this price along with the sales price, if it is not explicitly stated that the sales price does not include VAT; otherwise (the fact that the VAT price will be paid separately) must be proved by the plaintiff
T.C.
Supreme
Article No:2014/19132
Decision No:2015/6993
K. Date:12.5.2015
At the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was examined, the file was discussed and considered as necessary after the decision to dismiss the case for the reasons written in the decision was appealed by the party’s deputies within the period of decency.
– K A R A R –
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 requested and sued to continue the proceedings and to decide on a 20% enforcement denial compensation against the defendant.
Defendant’s Attorney, his client with the plaintiff’s 8 piece of real estate including VAT 182.000 TL they’ve reached an agreement to buy and sell price, including VAT and immovable property 182.000 TL VAT price that was purchased from the title deed of the plaintiff for a declaration that the price is not legal under the name of money demand and dismisses the case against the plaintiffs with a 20% kotuniyet requested that the decision be given to compensation.
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 Legal Department.dated 2010 and dated 2010/3127 E., 2010/12338 K., Supreme Court 19. The Law Department has a certificate 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 was following up with malice, it was decided to reject the defendant’s claim for compensation, and the verdict was appealed by the party’s deputies.
According to the articles in the dossier, the evidence on which the decision was based and the reasons for the necessity, there was no error in the discretion of the evidence, the APPROVAL of the decision found in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting all appeals that were not considered on the spot by the party’s deputies, the receipt of the approval fees written below from the appellants, was unanimously decided on 12.05.2015.
