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
C series
—
25.11.2024
(Case C-527/24, Harry et Associés)
(C/2024/6909)
Language of the case: Italian
Applicant: Harry et Associés Sarl
Defendants: Agenzia delle entrate – Riscossione – Pescara, Agenzia delle entrate – Centro operativo di Pescara
Do Article 167 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and the general principles of VAT neutrality and proportionality of the limitation of the right to deduct VAT preclude:
(a)national rules – identifiable with Article 21(2) of Legislative Decree 546/1992 and Article 38 bis.2 of Presidential Decree No 633/1972 – which, in domestic law, by allowing a refund application vitiated by technical computer errors to be declared as devoid of effect, preclude access to the courts, and are such as to entail forfeiture of the right to be refunded in a substantive situation in which the VAT refund is due to the taxpayer;
(b)a principle of law, such as that affirmed by the Supreme Court of Cassation, whereby ‘an application for refund of a VAT credit, which, owing to technical faults in the electronic transmission, is not visible to the tax authorities, is not suitable for creating a situation of appealable silent denial, as the tax authorities are not in a position to take action’, such as to preclude direct access to the courts in the case at hand, and therefore such as to entail forfeiture of the right to a refund even in a substantial situation in which the refund is due?
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6909/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—