Service of documents via the e-Tax Office (e-Urząd Skarbowy) – landmark judgment of a seven-judge panel of the supreme Administrative Court

October 6, 2026

On 4 August 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, NSA), sitting as a panel of seven judges, delivered a judgment that may be of fundamental significance for thousands of ongoing as well as concluded tax proceedings. The Court ruled that tax authorities may not rely on the legal fiction of service in respect of documents made available to an authorised representative exclusively via the e-Tax Office platform (e-Urząd Skarbowy), where a different electronic address was specified in the special power of attorney filed in the case.

Background to the issue – what is the e-Tax Office and how did the dispute arise?

The e-Tax Office (e-US) is an ICT platform operated by the National Revenue Administration that enables users, among other things, to submit documents, review tax settlements and receive correspondence from tax authorities. Many professional representatives, including tax advisers, advocates and legal advisers, have consented to receiving correspondence through the platform, often for their own affairs or for convenience in other matters.

The problem arose when tax authorities began systematically serving decisions and rulings in tax proceedings through e-US, regardless of the electronic address indicated by the representative in a specific special power of attorney (for example, an ePUAP or e-Deliveries address). Furthermore, after 14 days had elapsed from the date on which a document was made available in the system, the authorities treated it as effectively served based on the legal fiction of service provided for in Article 144(5) of the Tax Ordinance Act. In many cases, taxpayers became aware of decisions issued against them only after a significant delay, sometimes even after the deadline for appealing had expired.

NSA order of 16 March 2026 (Case No. I FSK 1307/25) – referral of the legal issue

The case concerned a limited liability company whose VAT settlements for several months of 2013 became the subject of audit proceedings. After issuing its decision, the tax authority served it on the company’s authorised representative, who was both a tax adviser and an advocate, through his e-US account. After 14 days, the authority deemed the document to have been served. The representative and the company consistently maintained that the decision should have been delivered to the ePUAP address specified in the special power of attorney filed in the proceedings.

While considering a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Kraków of 24 April 2025 (Case No. I SA/Kr 189/25), an ordinary panel of the NSA identified a legal issue giving rise to serious doubts and, by order of 16 March 2026, referred it to a seven-judge panel. The question was whether a representative’s consent to receiving correspondence through e-US (outside the context of the pending proceedings) results in a change to the electronic address specified in a previously filed special power of attorney within the meaning of Articles 145(2), 146(1), 144(1a) and 144(5) of the Tax Ordinance Act.

Hearing and judgment of the Seven-Judge panel of the NSA

The case attracted the attention of the most important stakeholders within the tax system. Positions were submitted by the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Finance and the Ombudsman for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. The National Chamber of Tax Advisers was granted leave to participate in the proceedings. Interest from the professional community was exceptional, as the issue potentially affects thousands of tax decisions and rulings issued over the past several years, the validity of whose service may now be challenged.

The seven-judge panel of the NSA held that merely making a document available to an authorised representative through the e-US system is not equivalent to service within the meaning of the Tax Ordinance Act if a different electronic address has been specified in the special power of attorney filed in the proceedings. In such circumstances, the tax authority is bound by the address indicated in the power of attorney and may not rely on the legal fiction of service in relation to a document that was delivered solely via e-US without simultaneous service to the proper address.

However, the NSA left tax authorities with a degree of flexibility, the future implications of which may prove difficult to predict. In its oral reasoning, the Court indicated that effective service may also occur, irrespective of the method of service specified in the power of attorney (which remains binding upon the authorities), where the representative has in fact become acquainted with the contents of the document. Evidence of this could include the document having been downloaded or opened in the e-Tax Office system. In other words, while the NSA did not permit service through e-US where the taxpayer or representative had not selected that communication channel, it also indicated that if the recipient actually accesses the document, service should be regarded as having been validly effected.

Practical consequences of the judgment

The judgment may have significant procedural consequences. Taxpayers in whose cases tax authorities relied on the legal fiction of service through e-US while disregarding the address specified in a special power of attorney may wish to consider:

• filing an application for a declaration that the decision is null and void, if the decision did not validly enter into legal circulation (Article 247(1)(2) of the Tax Ordinance Act – gross breach of the law);
• applying for reinstatement of the time limit for lodging an appeal where the deadline was missed solely as a result of defective service;
• bringing an appeal before an administrative court against a decision of the appellate authority upholding a decision that had been treated as effectively served.

For professional representatives, the judgment serves above all as a signal to conduct an immediate review of active proceedings and verify whether tax authorities are respecting the address specified in the special power of attorney. In light of the judgment, correspondence sent exclusively via e-US should not give rise to the legal fiction of service and therefore should not trigger the commencement of procedural time limits (except where valid service has in fact been effected within the prescribed period).

Tags decyzja podatkowa, ePUAP, NSA, tax decision