PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT PROCEDURE

 There is a request for a stay of execution.

… … TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE TAX COURT

PLAINTIFF: —
REPRESENTATIVE: —
DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATION: — (… Tax Office Directorate/Department)

SUBJECT OF THE CASE: Our request is for the annulment of the e-attachment process applied to the plaintiff's accounts by the defendant collection office on …/…/2025 by sending electronic attachment notices (e-attachment) to the banks , on the grounds of (i) proceeding with collection without serving a payment order, (ii) the debt being paid/deferred, (iii) statute of limitations, (iv) disproportionate full blocking of the accounts compared to the debt amount, and (v) irregular notification , and for a stay of execution pursuant to Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 .

TYPE OF CLAIM: Annulment lawsuit — Request for preliminary injunction . TIME LIMIT: 60 days according to Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law (from the date of notification/learning of the decision).

---

CONCRETE EVENT (Scenario)

1. An assessment of VAT for the period 2021/12 was issued against the plaintiff on …/…/2023 with number … . Although it is claimed that a payment order was issued based on this assessment, the UETS/postal document bears the annotation "notification returned/not delivered" ; the plaintiff was not properly notified .

2. The plaintiff applied for deferment and installment payments under Article 48 of Law No. 6183 on …/…/2024 to resolve the dispute ; a 12-month deferment decision was issued on …/…/2024 , and the first 3 installments have been paid (receipts are attached).

3. Despite this, the defendant administration sent e-attachment notices to all banks on …/…/2025, completely freezing all deposit and POS/blocked accounts . The attachment was applied as a full block on balances reaching 2,800,000 TL in the plaintiff's business accounts, in response to a total debt of 1,250,000 TL . This action disrupted the company's salary/social security/supplier payments , causing irreparable harm .

---

LEGAL EXPLANATIONS

1. The seizure process cannot begin without a payment order being served (Articles 55, 62, and 79 of Law No. 6183). In the legal system of Law No. 6183 , a payment order is a mandatory prerequisite for the compulsory collection process . Establishing an e-seizure directly without properly serving a payment order to the plaintiff is clearly against the law . (Notification records are attached.)
   

2. Forced collection is not possible while a deferment (Article 48 of Law No. 6183) is in effect. Forced collection procedures are suspended during the period the deferment decision is in force ; applying seizure without breaking the deferment is unlawful . The plaintiff is regularly paying the deferment installments (receipts are attached).
   

3. Statute of Limitations for Collection (Articles 102-104 of Law No. 6183) and Payment/Duplication of Debt:
   the statute of limitations for collection has expired or the debt has been partially/fully paid , the seizure process is invalid. The file [amounts paid/items closed by offsetting] .

4. Disproportionate Complete Blocking — The Arrangement of Seizure and the Principle of Proportionality: According to the General Circular on Collection (Series: A) and the provisions of Law No. 6183, seizure should be applied to the extent necessary to cover the public debt and to minimize harm to the taxpayer . Completely blocking all accounts exceeding 2,800,000 TL when the debt is 1,250,000 TL is disproportionate ; it constitutes an excessive interference with the right to property (Article 35 of the Constitution) .
   

5. Irregular Service of process – Impact on the Time Limit under Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law: E-attachment notices were sent electronically to financial institutions ; however, simultaneous notification/service was not provided to the plaintiff. In cases of irregular service of process , the lawsuit period begins from the date of learning ; this lawsuit is within the current time limit .
   

6. Conditions for Suspension of Execution (Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law): The e-attachment has completely halted the business's cash flow , making check, promissory note, salary, tax, and social security payments impossible. The action is clearly unlawful , and the condition of irreparable harm has been met. Suspension of execution should be granted without requiring collateral or with collateral deemed appropriate by your court .
   

---

LEGAL GROUNDS

Constitution Articles 13, 35; Law No. 6183 Articles 48, 55, 62, 79, 102-104; Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 Articles 2, 3, 7, 27, 31; Notification Law No. 7201; General Collection Circular (Series: A) and related secondary legislation; general principles and established Council of State precedents.

EVIDENCE

• Electronic seizure notices sent to banks (…/…/2025)

• UETS/postal notification records (documents with "returned/not delivered" annotation regarding payment order notification)

• Deferral/installment payment decision letter (dated/numbered …/…/2024) and payment receipts

• Collection receipts, offsetting/payment records

• Administrative collection files and tax/penalty notices

• Bank correspondence, account statements (blockage amounts)

• Expert opinion and all necessary legal evidence, if required.

We request that the administrative file be obtained and the electronic attachment notices sent to the banks be requested in order to collect evidence

---

REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION (Administrative Procedure Law, Article 27)

Due to the electronic seizure, all of the plaintiff's accounts have been blocked, effectively halting their business activities . This action is clearly unlawful and has caused irreparable harm . Therefore, we request that the electronic seizure process be immediately stopped and that letters be sent to the banks requesting the lifting of the block

---

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

For the reasons explained above;

1. The e-seizure process dated …/…/2025 is hereby CANCELED,

2. During the trial, a stay of execution was ordered and letters were sent to the banks requesting the lifting of the blockade

3. The administrative file shall be obtained, and expert examination shall be conducted.

4. The court costs and attorney fees the defendant administration .

We respectfully request and demand that a decision be made.
Date: …/…/2025
Signature: —

---

APPENDICES

1. E-seizure notices (bank letters) – date/number

2. UETS/postal notification printouts (payment order)

3. Deferral/installment payment decision and payment receipts

4. Collection receipts/offset records

5. Bank statements (blockage amounts)

6. Power of attorney sample (if any)

7. Other documents