# C_2019206EN.01001001.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — PORR Építési Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-691/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct value added tax (VAT) paid as input tax - Article 199(1)(a) - Reverse charge procedure - Undue payment of the tax by the recipient of services to the suppliers on the basis of an invoice drawn up incorrectly according to the rules on ordinary taxation - Tax authority’s decision holding that the recipient of services has an outstanding tax liability and refusing a claim for deduction - No examination by the tax authority of the possibility of reimbursement of the tax)

(2019/C 206/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PORR Építési Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

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 the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of the tax authority whereby, in the absence of any suspicion of tax evasion, that authority refuses an undertaking the right to deduct the value added tax which that undertaking, as the recipient of services, unduly paid to the supplier of those services on the basis of an invoice drawn up by that supplier in accordance with the rules on the ordinary value added tax (VAT) regime, whereas the relevant transaction fell under the reverse charge mechanism, and where the tax authority did not,

| — | examine, prior to refusing the right to deduct, whether the issuer of that incorrect invoice could reimburse the recipient of the invoice the amount of VAT unduly paid and could correct that invoice under a self-correction procedure, in accordance with the applicable national rules, in order to recover the tax which it unduly paid to the Treasury, or |
| --- | --- |

—

examine, prior to refusing the right to deduct, whether the issuer of that incorrect invoice could reimburse the recipient of the invoice the amount of VAT unduly paid and could correct that invoice under a self-correction procedure, in accordance with the applicable national rules, in order to recover the tax which it unduly paid to the Treasury, or

| — | itself decide to reimburse the recipient of that invoice the tax which the recipient unduly paid to the issuer of the invoice and that the latter, subsequently, unduly paid to the Treasury. |
| --- | --- |

—

itself decide to reimburse the recipient of that invoice the tax which the recipient unduly paid to the issuer of the invoice and that the latter, subsequently, unduly paid to the Treasury.

Those principles require, however, in the situation where the reimbursement by the supplier of services to the recipient of those services of the VAT unduly invoiced would be impossible or excessively difficult, in particular in the case of the insolvency of the supplier, that the recipient of the services must be able to address its application for reimbursement to the tax authorities directly.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---