- 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-610/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Vikingo Fővállalkozó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168, 178, 220 and 226 — Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality — Right to deduct VAT — Refusal — Conditions for the existence of a supply of goods — Evasion — Proof — Penalty — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective judicial remedy)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CB0610
62019CB0610
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
30.11.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 414/17
(Case C-610/19) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168, 178, 220 and 226 - Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality - Right to deduct VAT - Refusal - Conditions for the existence of a supply of goods - Evasion - Proof - Penalty - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective judicial remedy)
(2020/C 414/21)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Vikingo Fővállalkozó Kft.
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Operative part of the order
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice by which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct the value added tax paid on purchases of goods which were supplied to him or her, on the ground that credence cannot be given to the invoices relating to those purchases because, first, the manufacture of those goods and their supply could not, as the necessary material and human resources were lacking, have been effected by the issuer of those invoices and the goods were therefore, in fact, purchased from an unidentified person, secondly, the national accounting rules were not complied with, thirdly, the supply chain which led to those purchases was not economically justified and, fourthly, irregularities vitiated certain earlier transactions forming part of that supply chain. In order to provide a basis for such a refusal, it must be established to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person actively participated in fraud or that that taxable person knew or should have known that those transactions were connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoices or any other trader acting upstream in that supply chain, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
(*) Language of the case: Hungarian.