The Court of Cassation, Section 5, with Order no. 22333 of August 5, 2021 reiterated that the failure to find (or the refusal to receive) the addressee and the other persons alternatively indicated by the provision of art. 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure (and in the order peremptorily indicated therein) “must result, expressly and punctually, from the report of the notifying officer, the only and exclusive form of documentation of the notification activities, not being able to be proved aliunde (for example, by a subsequent certification of the notifier) or be inferred, by implication, from the type of notification pursuant to art. 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure actually adopted (in this sense, with specific reference to the notification of tax documents, Supreme Court of Cassation 27/03/2013, no. 7710; Supreme Court of Cassation 31/07/2007, no.16899 Cass. 16/05/2002, no. 7160; Cass. 17/11/2000, no. 14890).
Failure to certify, in the notification report, the completion of the search for the persons who may potentially be the recipients of the deed renders illegitimate the adoption of the notification procedure pursuant to article 140 of the code of civil procedure and invalidates the notification thus executed (cf., in addition to the sentences cited above, Court of Cassation 11461 of August 1, 2002; Court of Cassation 7309 of August 9, 1996; Court of Cassation 104 of January 9, 1991)”.
Sulla base di tali principi è stata cassata la decisione della CTR in quanto aveva “fondato l’affermazione di validità della notifica ex art. of the notice of assessment on documents other than the notification report (in particular, communications between the Revenue Agency and the City of Butera, the notice of deposit of the act in the town hall), without instead stopping at the relief of the absolute lack, in the notification report, of any indication about the operations of the municipal messenger notifier search and retrieval of subjects possible deliverers of the act (and even access to the messenger to the address of residence, home or domicile of the recipient)”, concluding for the illegitimacy of the registration (as well as the payment folder that that registration gives notice to the taxpayer) consequential to that notice (among many, Cass. 18/01/2018, n.1144 ).