- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-156/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Zipvit Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Right of deduction — Supply of postal services mistakenly exempted — VAT deemed to be included in the commercial price of the supply for the purpose of exercising the right of deduction — Not included — Concept of VAT ‘due or paid’)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0156
62020CA0156
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
7.3.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 109/6
(Case C-156/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Supply of postal services mistakenly exempted - VAT deemed to be included in the commercial price of the supply for the purpose of exercising the right of deduction - Not included - Concept of VAT ‘due or paid’)
(2022/C 109/08)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Zipvit Ltd
Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Operative part of the judgment
Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax (VAT) cannot be regarded as being due or paid, within the meaning of that provision, and is therefore not deductible by the taxable person, in the case where, first, that person and its supplier have mistakenly assumed, on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of EU law by the national authorities, that the supplies at issue were exempt from VAT and that, consequently, the invoices issued did not refer to it, in a situation where the contract between those two persons provides that, if that tax were due, the recipient of the supply should bear the cost of it, and, second, no step to recover the VAT was taken in good time, with the result that any action by the supplier and the tax and customs administration to recover the unpaid VAT is time-barred.
(1)
OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.