Limits to knowability in timeliness and estoppel

firoj3131

Rodrigo Octavio Franco Morgero Galderise Fernandes Teles August AdministrativeTax The tax administrative process constitutes an instrument through which the idea of ​​public interest is presented in the form of controlling the legality of the tax administrative act. This assertion, in itself, already justifies the admission of greater procedural and cognitive flexibility of the administrative tax judge, something that is revealed, for example, in the broad instructional powers attributed to the judging authority.

In this context, the question that arises is the following: would it be possible to allow, under the pretext of prioritizing self-control of tax legality, the continuation of untimely administrative challenges or appeals? Unlike what occurs in the investigative scope where the invocation of the public interest for the purposes EX Mobile Phone Numbers of self-control of the legality of administrative acts goes beyond the subjective limits of the parties in conflict, in the appellate scope the interest defended, indisputably, is restricted to the protection of the subjective claim invoked. by the appellant, holder of the appeal interest.



This is obviously not about admitting the restriction of the constitutional right to appeal and the double degree of jurisdiction article of the Constitutional text), but rather about privileging the notion, also constitutional, of due legal process which informs the legal regime specific to administrative tax litigation. This is even the position of Rodrigo Dalla Pria, for whom  the right to appeal in the administrative-tax process, as it occurs in the judicial sphere, is guided by peremptorily preclusive deadlines. In this regard, unlike what occurs on the cognitive level and instructional, there is no space for us to consider a possible procedural flexibility capable of overcoming, in the name of the public interest, any loss of the appeal deadline.