- 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-525/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Mednis SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 183 — Conditions for the refund of the excess VAT — National legislation deferring the refund of part of the excess VAT pending examination of the taxable person’s annual tax return — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CA0525
62011CA0525
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 379/12
(Case C-525/11) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Conditions for the refund of the excess VAT - National legislation deferring the refund of part of the excess VAT pending examination of the taxable person’s annual tax return - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)
2012/C 379/19
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Mednis SIA
Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input VAT — National legislation limiting monthly VAT refund — Deferment, until examination of annual tax return, of the refund of the part of overpaid VAT that exceeds 18 % of the total value of the taxable transactions carried out during the tax month in question
Operative part of the judgment
Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not authorising the tax authority of a Member State to defer, without undertaking a specific analysis and solely on the basis of an arithmetical calculation, the refund of part of the excess VAT which has arisen during a one-month tax period, pending the examination by that authority of the taxable person’s annual tax return.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.