- 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-531/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vetsch Int. Transporte GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 143(1)(d) — Exemptions from VAT on importation — Imports followed by an intra-Community transfer — Subsequent intra-Community supply — Tax evasion — Refusal of the exemption — Conditions)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0531
62017CA0531
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
8.4.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 131/8
(Case C-531/17) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 143(1)(d) - Exemptions from VAT on importation - Imports followed by an intra-Community transfer - Subsequent intra-Community supply - Tax evasion - Refusal of the exemption - Conditions)
(2019/C 131/09)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Other party: Zollamt Feldkirch Wolfurt
Operative part of the judgment
Article 143(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 143(1)(d) of that directive, as amended by Council Directive 2009/69/EC of 25 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from import value added tax laid down in those provisions may not be refused in respect of an importer designated or recognised as liable for payment of that tax, within the meaning of Article 201 of Directive 2006/112, in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, in which, first, the recipient of the intra-Community transfer of goods effected after that import commits tax evasion in connection with a transaction which is subsequent to that transfer and is not linked to that transfer and, secondly, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the importer knew or ought to have known that that subsequent transaction entailed tax evasion on the part of the recipient.
Language of the case: German.