VATupdate
VAT

Share this post on

ECJ C-10/19 (Wilo Salmson France SAS) – Order – When should input VAT be recovered if no invoice is received?

On June 5, 2019, the ECJ issued an Order in the case C-10/19 (Wilo Salmson France SAS), and found that the case was inadmissable


Article in the EU VAT Directive


Facts

  • On 2 September 2016, Wilo Salmson France was notified of a decision by the National Tax Administration Agency – Bucharest Regional Directorate General of Public Finance rejecting its complaint against a decision to refund VAT.
  • Wilo Salmson France brought an appeal against that decision of that agency before the Tribunalul Bucureşti (High Court of Bucharest, Romania).
  • In the context of the proceedings before the national court, the plaintiff in the main action has lodged a request that the Court should have a question for a preliminary ruling.
  • In that regard, the referring court, in referring to that request, stated that Wilo Salmson France’s situation was atypical in the light of the assumptions laid down in Directive 2008/9 and that, since the VAT Directive does not did not expressly govern the period within which the right of deduction could be exercised, that company considered that the date on which that period began to run could not be established exclusively with regard to the moment when the goods had been delivered without it having other relevant circumstances.
  • Following that statement, the referring court concluded that, in order to analyze that factual situation, it was necessary to interpret provisions of European Union law and upheld the applicant’s claim in the main proceedings. to seize the Court.
  • In those circumstances, the Tribunalul Bucureşti (High Court of Bucharest) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
    (1) With regard to Article 167 read in conjunction with Article 178 of the [VAT] Directive, is there a distinction between when the right to deduct arises and when the right to deduct arises? given the way in which the VAT system operates, in order to know whether the right to deduct VAT can be exercised in the absence of a tax invoice for the goods purchased?
    2) As regards the interpretation of Article 167 read in conjunction with Article 178 of the [VAT] Directive and Article 14 (1) (a) of Directive 2008, first hypothesis / 9, what is the procedural benchmark against which it is necessary to assess the regularity of the exercise of the right to reimbursement of VAT, in order to know whether it is possible to formulate an application for reimbursement of the VAT which became due before the repayment period, while its billing occurred during the repayment period?

Questions


AG Opinion

None


Decision

The request for a preliminary ruling made by Tribunalul Bucureşti (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania), by decision of 2 February 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.


Personal comments/VATupdate 


Source Curia


Similar ECJ cases


How did countries implement the case?  Your feedback appreciated!  Let us know


Newsletters

 

  • .

Sponsors:

VAT news
VAT news

Advertisements:

  • vatcomsult
  • AXWAY - VATupdate Banner