# C_2014303EN.01001602.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 June 2014 — PPUH Stehcemp Sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

(Case C-277/14)

2014/C 303/21

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PPUH Stehcemp Sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Must Articles 2(1), 4(1) and (2), 5(1) and 10(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (‘the Sixth Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that a transaction conducted in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which neither the taxable person nor the tax authorities are in a position to establish the identity of the actual supplier of the goods, constitutes a supply of goods? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must Articles 2(1), 4(1) and (2), 5(1) and 10(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (‘the Sixth Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that a transaction conducted in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which neither the taxable person nor the tax authorities are in a position to establish the identity of the actual supplier of the goods, constitutes a supply of goods?

1

| 2) | If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Articles 17(2)(a), 18(1)(a) and 22(3) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, tax cannot be deducted by the taxable person since the invoice was issued by a person who was not the actual supplier of the goods and it is not possible to establish the identity of the actual supplier of the goods and to require that supplier to pay the tax, or to identify the person required to pay the tax on the basis of the issuance of the invoice pursuant to Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Articles 17(2)(a), 18(1)(a) and 22(3) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, tax cannot be deducted by the taxable person since the invoice was issued by a person who was not the actual supplier of the goods and it is not possible to establish the identity of the actual supplier of the goods and to require that supplier to pay the tax, or to identify the person required to pay the tax on the basis of the issuance of the invoice pursuant to Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive?

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

---