# C_2021513EN.01001001.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Wilo Salmson France SAS v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti –- Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi

(Case C-80/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 to 171 and Article 178(a) - Right to deduct VAT - Refund of VAT to taxable persons established in a Member State other than the Member State of refund - Possession of an invoice - Directive 2008/9/EC - Rejection of a refund application - ‘Cancellation’ of the invoice by the supplier - Issuing of a new invoice - New refund application - Rejection)

(2021/C 513/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wilo Salmson France SAS

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti –- Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 167 to 171 and 178 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 and Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the right to a refund of value added tax (VAT) charged on a supply of goods cannot be exercised by a taxable person established not in the Member State of refund but in another Member State, if that taxable person does not hold an invoice, within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, relating to the purchase of the goods concerned. Only if a document is so flawed as to deprive the national tax administration of the information necessary to support a refund claim can such a document be considered not to be an ‘invoice’ within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 167 to 171 and 178 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 and Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the right to a refund of value added tax (VAT) charged on a supply of goods cannot be exercised by a taxable person established not in the Member State of refund but in another Member State, if that taxable person does not hold an invoice, within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, relating to the purchase of the goods concerned. Only if a document is so flawed as to deprive the national tax administration of the information necessary to support a refund claim can such a document be considered not to be an ‘invoice’ within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45.

| 2. | Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, and the first of the situations referred to in Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the rejection of an application for a refund of value added tax (VAT) relating to a given refund period solely on the ground that that VAT became chargeable during an earlier refund period, even though it was invoiced only during that given period. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, and the first of the situations referred to in Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the rejection of an application for a refund of value added tax (VAT) relating to a given refund period solely on the ground that that VAT became chargeable during an earlier refund period, even though it was invoiced only during that given period.

| 3. | Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45 and Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that the unilateral cancellation of an invoice by a supplier, after the adoption by the Member State of refund of a decision rejecting the application for a refund of value added tax (VAT), which was based on that invoice, and when that decision has already become final, followed by the issuing by that supplier, during a subsequent refund period, of a new invoice relating to the same supplies, without those supplies being called into question, has no bearing on the existence of the right to a refund of VAT which has already been exercised or on the period in respect of which that right must be exercised. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45 and Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that the unilateral cancellation of an invoice by a supplier, after the adoption by the Member State of refund of a decision rejecting the application for a refund of value added tax (VAT), which was based on that invoice, and when that decision has already become final, followed by the issuing by that supplier, during a subsequent refund period, of a new invoice relating to the same supplies, without those supplies being called into question, has no bearing on the existence of the right to a refund of VAT which has already been exercised or on the period in respect of which that right must be exercised.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---