- 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-446/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input VAT — Excess VAT — Retention of the excess following the initiation of a tax inspection procedure — Request for a refund of the excess part relating to transactions not covered by that procedure)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0446
62018CA0446
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 240/3
(Case C-446/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input VAT - Excess VAT - Retention of the excess following the initiation of a tax inspection procedure - Request for a refund of the excess part relating to transactions not covered by that procedure)
(2020/C 240/03)
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: AGROBET CZ, s.r.o.
Defendant: Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj
Operative part of the judgment
Articles 179, 183 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not allow the tax authority, before the end of a tax inspection procedure relating to a value added tax (VAT) return showing an excess for a given tax period, to refund that part of the excess relating to transactions which are not covered by that procedure at the time it was initiated, provided that it is not possible to establish in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner that a VAT excess, the amount of which may potentially be lower than the amount relating to the transactions not covered by that procedure, will exist regardless of the outcome of that procedure, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.
(*)
Language of the case: Czech.