Judgment No. 975/2025 (Case File No. 04378-2022-PA/TC)

The Constitutional Court (TC) requires effective notice beyond the SOL inbox

1. Background

• The taxpayer challenged the coactive collection proceedings in which a series of attachments were ordered, alleging the nullity of the assessment and penalty notices because they were sent to disabled email addresses, leaving it without an effective opportunity to defend itself. It further argued that the tax administration should have ensured the taxpayer had actual notice of the proceedings by resorting to the registered tax address after the electronic alerts were rejected.
• SUNAT argued that the notices were validly served through the SOL inbox and that the dispute should be heard in contentious-administrative proceedings.

2. Grounds of the Constitutional Court

Equally adequate remedy

• In principle, contentious-administrative proceedings are the appropriate route to challenge acts of the Administration.
• However, an amparo action is admissible when the following conditions are present: urgency and a risk of irreparable harm. In this case, this is met because the alleged violation of the right to a defense in the context of a coactive collection proceeding involving more than S/ 83 million poses a risk a serious and immediate risk of harm.

Right to notice and defense

• Notice is an essential act for due process.
• It is not enough to notify through the SOL inbox; SUNAT must ensure certainty that the taxpayer has been made aware.

SUNAT’s shortcomings

• Although SUNAT evidenced notices in the SOL inbox, they were insufficient.
• The Administration should have adopted additional measures to safeguard the right of defense.

3. Decision

• Declare the amparo claim well-founded, upon establishing a violation of the right to a defense and due process.
• Declare null the service of the resolutions issued in the audit and coactive collection enforcement proceeding that were sent solely to disabled email addresses.[1].
• Order that the following resolutions be served at the taxpayer’s registered tax address, in accordance with Article 104 of the Tax Code (CT) and the Tribunal’s case law in the Tribunal’s own Case No. 04378-2022-AA

4. Relevance and novelty of the case

The precedents cited by the Constitutional Court itself (STC 03394-2021-PA/TC, STC 03314-2022-PA/TC and STC 07279-2013- PA/TC) concerned individuals and held that SUNAT must ensure absolute certainty in service, even resorting to the physical address when necessary.

The novelty of the recent judgment lies in the fact that, while the criterion was already applicable to individuals, the TC now extends it to legal entities, confirming that protection against defective service also applies to companies.

5. Key points to keep in mind

• The SOL inbox alone is not enough: service must ensure actual notice.
• An amparo action is admissible in coactive collection proceedings when there is a risk of irreparable harm.
• The doctrine of absolute certainty in tax service is consolidated, now expressly applied to legal entities.

The applicability and usefulness of the ruling must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For more information, please contact socios@grzasociados.com

To view the full publication, please click the following link: https://acortar.link/o5QsDk

[1]      Note that, according to the Tribunal’s interpretation, this nullity extends to notices that, even though they were deposited in the SOL inbox, had only disabled email addresses as alerts.