- 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-329/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Altic’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Procurement of food products — Deduction of input tax — Refusal of deduction — Possibly fictitious supplier — VAT fraud — Requirements relating to knowledge on the part of the purchaser — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Obligations of traceability of foodstuffs and identification of the supplier — Regulations (CE) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 — Registration obligations of operators in the food sector — Effect on the right to deduct VAT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0329
62018CA0329
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 413/16
(Case C-329/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Procurement of food products - Deduction of input tax - Refusal of deduction - Possibly fictitious supplier - VAT fraud - Requirements relating to knowledge on the part of the purchaser - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Obligations of traceability of foodstuffs and identification of the supplier - Regulations (CE) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 - Registration obligations of operators in the food sector - Effect on the right to deduct VAT)
(2019/C 413/18)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Other party: ‘Altic’ SIA
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person who participates in the food chain from being refused the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) on the sole ground, assuming that it has been duly established, that that taxable person has not complied with his obligations under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, to identify his suppliers for the purposes of traceability of foodstuffs, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. Non-compliance with those obligations may, however, constitute one element among others which, taken together and in a consistent manner, tend to show that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was involved in a transaction involving VAT fraud, which it is for the referring court to assess.
2.Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as meaning that the failure, by a taxable person who participates in the food chain, to ascertain that his suppliers are registered with the competent authorities, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs and Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, is not relevant for the purpose of determining whether the taxable person knew or should have known that he was involved in a transaction involving VAT fraud.
(*)
Language of the case: Latvian.
ECLI:EU:C:2019:140
15