Can you appeal against an enforcement surcharge? On what grounds can one legally challenge the authorities?

Under The rate law, with express and closed nature, the reason to put a claim can be put forward against enforcement order. Such reasons are the following:

a) Prescribing the right of government to demand the tax debt. Indeed, as we will discuss in Chapter 7, the course of time without administrative activity, causes the Administration to decline action to enforce its right to collect a tax debt.

b) Settlement cancellation. If the settlement that gave rise to the debt has been declared void by either the body which issued the act, either 28 by a higher court instance, it is enough reason to challenge the enforcement procedure. This is logical if we consider that the enforcement procedure is exclusively concerned with the collection of a tax debt, which should be annulled, it ceases to be enforceable.

c) Suspension of the execution of the administrative act. If the execution of the administrative act is suspended, it would be contradictory to proceed with the opening of enforcement procedure. This case occurs typically when the taxpayer appeals within the time the settlement has been withdrawn by the Administration, providing sufficient guarantees for the suspension (see section 5.9). In this case, the execution of the settlement is suspended until final judgment on the merits that is in question, Given that in the event that the final decision is favourable to their interests the Administration has sufficiently guaranteed the tax debt.

d) Postponement or instalments of tax debt payment.
It is clear that a request for rescheduling by the taxpayer is favourably resolved by the Administration, It would not be appropriate to urge their assets. It would be contradictory (see Chapter 5).

e) Prior payment of the tax debt. Not deserve further comment.

f) Lack of regulatory notice of a settlement. It is obvious, if there has been no prior notification of the settlement (see Chapter 6), or if it has been defective, the administrative act has not had the intended effects. Therefore, the enforcement would have deprived the taxpayer the right that it has to use the corresponding administrative act in time and form, which motivates the objection of the enforcement order.