Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)
12 March 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Intra-Community acquisition of goods – Article 168 – Deduction of input VAT due in respect of such an acquisition – Articles 178 and 179 – Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT – Late submission of invoices necessary for the exercise of the right to deduct VAT – Refusal of the right to deduct VAT – National legislation providing for a self-correction procedure enabling the taxable person to exercise his or her right of deduction beyond the tax period during which that right arose – Principles of neutrality, proportionality and effectiveness )
In Case C‑521/24,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Győri Törvényszék (Győr High Court, Hungary), made by decision of 19 July 2024, received at the Court on 30 July 2024, in the proceedings
Aptiv Services Hungary Kft.
v
Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága,
THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),
composed of M. Condinanzi, President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen and A. Kornezov (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: L. Medina,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–        Aptiv Services Hungary Kft., by A. Boros and A. Posztl, ügyvédek,
–        the Hungarian Government, by M.Z. Fehér and R. Kissné Berta, acting as Agents,
–        the European Commission, by M. Herold and Zs. Teleki, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 168(c), Article 178(c) and (d) and Articles 179 to 182 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010 (OJ 2010 L 189, p. 1) (‘the VAT Directive’), read in the light of the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality.
2        The request has been made in proceedings between Aptiv Services Hungary Kft. (‘Aptiv’), a company incorporated under Hungarian law, and the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Appeals Directorate of the National Tax and Customs Authority, Hungary; ‘the second-tier tax authority’) concerning the refusal of the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) due in respect of invoices relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods.
Legal context
European Union law
3        Under Article 2(1)(b)(i) of the VAT Directive:
‘The following transactions shall be subject to VAT:
…
(b)      the intra-Community acquisition of goods for consideration within the territory of a Member State by:
(i)      a taxable person acting as such, or a non-taxable legal person, where the vendor is a taxable person acting as such who is not eligible for the exemption for small enterprises provided for in Articles 282 to 292 and who is not covered by Articles 33 or 36’.
4        Article 69 of that directive provides:
‘In the case of the intra-Community acquisition of goods, VAT shall become chargeable on issue of the invoice, or on expiry of the time limit referred to in the first paragraph of Article 222 if no invoice has been issued by that time.’
5        Article 167 of the directive states:
‘A right of deduction shall arise at the time the deductible tax becomes chargeable.’
6        Under Article 168(c) of the VAT Directive:
‘In so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of the taxed transactions of a taxable person, the taxable person shall be entitled, in the Member State in which he carries out these transactions, to deduct the following from the VAT which he is liable to pay:
…
(c)      the VAT due in respect of intra-Community acquisitions of goods pursuant to Article 2(1)(b)(i)’.
7        Article 178(c) of the VAT directive provides:
‘In order to exercise the right of deduction, a taxable person must meet the following conditions:
…
(c)      for the purposes of deductions pursuant to Article 168(c), in respect of the intra-Community acquisition of goods, he must set out in the VAT return provided for in Article 250 all the information needed for the amount of VAT due on his intra-Community acquisitions of goods to be calculated and he must hold an invoice drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 3 of Title XI’.
8        Article 179 of that directive provides:
‘The taxable person shall make the deduction by subtracting from the total amount of VAT due for a given tax period the total amount of VAT in respect of which, during the same period, the right of deduction has arisen and is exercised in accordance with Article 178.
However, Member States may require that taxable persons who carry out occasional transactions, as defined in Article 12, exercise their right of deduction only at the time of supply.’
9        Article 180 of that directive provides:
‘Member States may authorise a taxable person to make a deduction which he has not made in accordance with Articles 178 and 179.’
10      Article 181 of the directive states:
‘Member States may authorise a taxable person who does not hold an invoice drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 3 of Title XI to make the deduction referred to in Article 168(c) in respect of his intra-Community acquisitions of goods.’
11      Under Article 182 of the VAT Directive:
‘Member States shall determine the conditions and detailed rules for applying Articles 180 and 181.’
12      Article 222 of that directive provides:
‘For supplies of goods carried out in accordance with the conditions specified in Article 138 or for supplies of services for which VAT is payable by the customer pursuant to Article 196, an invoice shall be issued no later than on the fifteenth day of the month following that in which the chargeable event occurs.
For other supplies of goods or services Member States may impose time limits on taxable persons for the issue of invoices.’
13      Article 250 of that directive provides:
‘1.      Every taxable person shall submit a VAT return setting out all the information needed to calculate the tax that has become chargeable and the deductions to be made including, in so far as is necessary for the establishment of the basis of assessment, the total value of the transactions relating to such tax and deductions and the value of any exempt transactions.
2.      Member States shall allow, and may require, the VAT return referred to in paragraph 1 to be submitted by electronic means, in accordance with conditions which they lay down.’
14      The first paragraph of Article 273 of the VAT Directive provides:
‘Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion, subject to the requirement of equal treatment as between domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States by taxable persons and provided that such obligations do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.’
Hungarian law
15      Paragraph 63(1) of the az általános forgalmi adóról szóló 2007. évi CXXVII. törvény (Law CXXVII of 2007 on value added tax) (Magyar Közlöny 2007/155. (XI.16.)), in the version applicable to the main proceedings (‘the Law on VAT’), provides:
‘In the case of the intra-Community acquisition of goods, the tax due shall be determined at the time when the invoice proving the performance of the transaction is issued or, at the latest, on the 15th day of the month following that in which the transaction was carried out.’
16      Pursuant to Paragraph 119(1) of that law:
‘Except where this law provides otherwise, the right to deduct the tax shall arise at the time when the amount due in respect of input tax is determined (Paragraph 120), even where the tax due is determined in accordance with Paragraph 196/B(2)(a).’
17      Paragraph 120(b) of that law provides:
‘In so far as the taxable person, acting as such, uses or otherwise exploits goods or services to carry out a taxable supply of goods or services, he or she shall be entitled to deduct from the tax that he or she is liable to pay:
…
(b)      the amount of tax calculated as tax due in connection with the acquisition of goods – including within the [European] Community – or the use of services, including payments on account where the tax is paid by the recipient of the services under Paragraph 140(a);
…’
18      Paragraph 127(1)(b) and (ba) of that law provides:
‘Exercise of the right of deduction shall be subject to the substantive condition that the taxable person is himself or herself in possession:
…
(b)      in the situations referred to in Paragraph 120(b):
(ba)      in the case of intra-Community supplies, of an invoice issued in his or her name which attests to the performance of the transaction,
…’
19      Under Paragraph 153/A(1) and (3) of the Law on VAT:
‘1.      A taxable person registered for VAT in national territory may reduce the total amount of the tax due in a tax period by the amount of
(a)      any deductible input tax in accordance with Paragraph 120(b), (c) and (cb) arising in the same tax period,
(b)      any deductible input tax other than that referred to in point (a) arising in the same or an earlier tax period, although no earlier than one calendar year preceding the calendar year including the same tax period.
3.      Any amount of deductible input tax which is not time-barred under the Tax Procedure Code and which has not been reduced in accordance with subparagraph 1 may be taken into account by the taxable person registered for VAT purposes in national territory as additional input tax for the tax period in which the right of deduction arose.’
20      Paragraph 257/J(1) to (2a) of that law provides:
‘1.      The taxable person may apply for a refund of the amount of the input tax which he or she has paid, if, for reasons beyond that person’s control, that tax has not been recovered or is not otherwise recoverable, contrary to the principle of fiscal neutrality.
2.      Subject to subparagraph 2a, the taxable person shall submit his or her application in writing to the national tax authority no later than six months before the right to assess the tax becomes time-barred. The taxable person also has the right to submit that application during an ongoing tax inspection. That time limit is a limitation period and no request for relief from the effects thereof shall be admitted if it is not complied with.
2a.      If the date on which the grounds for the application arose
falls within the six months preceding the time-bar of the right to assess the tax or is subsequent to the time-bar of that right, the taxable person may submit the application within a period of one year from the date on which those grounds arose. If the date on which the grounds for the application arose is subsequent to the time-bar of the right to assess the tax, the taxable person may apply for the refund of the amount of the input tax that he or she has paid only in exceptional and justified cases. A case shall be regarded as exceptional and justified if, due to the specific nature of the economic activity carried out by the taxable person, the grounds for the application occurred after the time-bar of the right to assess the tax. In the application, the taxable person shall state the grounds justifying its submission and the date on which those grounds occurred. The taxable person also has the right to submit that application during an ongoing tax inspection. That time limit is a limitation period and no request for relief from the effects thereof shall be admitted if it is not complied with.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
21      Aptiv was the subject of a VAT inspection for the period from 1 November 2020 to 31 December 2021.
22      In its decision following the inspection, the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Vas Megyei Adó- és Vámigazgatósága (Tax and Customs Directorate for the Vas Region of the National Tax and Customs Authority, Hungary) found that, in its VAT returns for the period from July to September 2021, Aptiv had deducted the VAT relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods made between 2016 and 2018.
23      That directorate therefore refused the deduction which Aptiv had applied for in respect of those acquisitions and found that that company was accordingly required to pay a tax debt corresponding, in essence, to the amount of VAT for which the deduction was refused.
24      Hearing a complaint against that directorate’s decision, the second-tier tax authority upheld that decision, taking the view, in essence, that Aptiv could exercise its right to deduct VAT in respect of intra-Community acquisitions of goods made between 2016 and 2018 only by means of a self-correction of the returns submitted in respect of those years.
25      The second-tier tax authority considered that a self-correction could no longer be made for 2016 and for part of 2017, on the ground that the period laid down by the national legislation for making such a self-correction had expired.
26      It also rejected Aptiv’s application to initiate a special VAT refund procedure under Paragraph 257/J of the Law on VAT.
27      Aptiv brought an action against the decision of the second-tier tax authority before the Győri Törvényszék (Győr High Court, Hungary), which is the referring court. That company argued, in essence, that the substantive conditions for the right to deduct VAT were satisfied and that the fact that certain formal requirements had not been fulfilled could not deprive it of that right. Aptiv emphasised that the fact that the deductible VAT on intra-Community acquisitions of goods made, in essence, between 2016 and 2018 had been stated in the VAT returns for the period from July to September 2021 was due to a delay in the submission of the invoices in question by the suppliers and to the late registration of those invoices in its accounts. In the absence of those invoices, Aptiv would have been unable to exercise its right of deduction in the VAT returns in respect of the period during which those acquisitions had been made.
28      The second-tier tax authority argued that Aptiv’s action should be dismissed. It pointed out that, where a taxable person belatedly receives the invoices necessary to exercise the right to deduct VAT relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods, he or she cannot make that deduction in a VAT return in respect of the period during which those invoices were received. In such circumstances, as long as the limitation period has not expired, the taxable person may only submit an application for self-correction relating to the period during which those acquisitions had been made.
29      The referring court considers that the decision of the second-tier tax authority is contrary to EU law.
30      In that regard, that court notes that it is apparent, in essence, from the judgments of 26 April 2018, Zabrus Siret (C‑81/17, EU:C:2018:283), and of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction) (C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216), that, in accordance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, the deduction of input VAT paid must be authorised if the substantive conditions for the right of deduction are satisfied, even where the taxable person concerned has not complied with certain formalities. Thus, provided that the tax authority has the information necessary to establish whether those conditions are satisfied, it cannot make the right of the taxable person to deduct that tax subject to other formal conditions which have the effect of rendering that right ineffective, such as the use of the self-correction procedure.
31      In those circumstances, that court considers, in essence, that national legislation which, in the event of delay, by suppliers, in the submission of the invoices necessary to exercise the right to deduct VAT relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods, does not allow that right to be exercised in the context of VAT returns in respect of the period during which those invoices were received, on the ground that, in such a case, the taxable person may make a self-correction of the returns in respect of the period during which those acquisitions had been made, is contrary to EU law.
32      Lastly, the referring court points out that, in the present case, Aptiv’s right to deduct VAT was not time-barred under national legislation.
33      In those circumstances, the Győri Törvényszék (Győr High Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Must Articles 168(c) and 178(c) and (d) and Articles 179, 180, 181 and 182 of
[the VAT Directive] and the principles of tax neutrality, proportionality and effectiveness be interpreted as meaning that the legislation and practice of a Member State are compatible with them where, according to that legislation and practice, the deduction of the input VAT in respect of intra-Community acquisitions of goods is refused and definitively excluded (no corrected return can be filed and the application for a special tax refund procedure is refused) on the ground that the taxable person, for administrative reasons, did not exercise its right to the deduction during the same tax period as that for which the tax due was calculated, although it did do so within the relevant [limitation period], in circumstances in which, in previous inspections, the tax authority of the Member State had not raised any objection to such exercise of the right?’
Consideration of the question referred
Admissibility
34      The Hungarian Government submits that it is not necessary to answer the single question referred in order to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings and that the matters of fact and law set out in the order for reference do not enable a ruling to be made on the lawfulness of the decision of the second-tier tax authority.
35      In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the preliminary reference procedure established in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them. According to settled case-law, which is now reflected in Article 94(a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the need to provide an interpretation of EU law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary for the national court to define the factual and regulatory context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, to explain the factual hypotheses on which those questions are based. Furthermore, it is essential, as stated in Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure, that the request for a preliminary ruling itself contain a statement of the reasons which prompted the referring court or tribunal to enquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of EU law, and the connection between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (judgment of 21 December 2023, Royal Antwerp Football Club, C‑680/21, EU:C:2023:1010, paragraph 31).
36      Moreover, the information provided in the order for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court to reply usefully but must also give the governments of the Member States and other interested parties an opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 21 December 2023, Royal Antwerp Football Club, C‑680/21, EU:C:2023:1010, paragraph 32).
37      In the present case, contrary to what the Hungarian Government maintains, the request for a preliminary ruling meets the requirements recalled in the two preceding paragraphs. It must be stated that the order for reference sets out, in sufficient detail, the factual and regulatory context of the question referred to the Court. In addition, that order states clearly the factual and legal reasons which led the referring court to consider that it was necessary to refer that question.
38      Further, the gist of the written observations submitted to the Court by Aptiv, the Hungarian Government and the European Commission highlights the fact that the parties submitting them, including that government, had no difficulty in grasping the factual and legal context of the referring court’s question, in understanding the meaning and scope of the underlying factual statements, in comprehending the reasons why the referring court considered it necessary to refer that question and also, ultimately, in effectively setting out a complete and proper position on it.
39      Consequently, the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
Substance
40      According to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it. In that regard, it is for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the order for reference, the points of EU law which require interpretation, having regard to the subject matter of the dispute (judgment of 23 October 2025, Zlakov, C‑744/23, EU:C:2025:816, paragraph 17).
41      In the present case, it appears, first of all, that it was only in 2021 that Aptiv received, from its suppliers, the invoices necessary to exercise its right to deduct VAT, which was in relation to intra-Community acquisitions of goods made between 2016 and 2018, with the result that it could assert that right for the first time only in the context of the VAT returns submitted in respect of the period during which Aptiv actually received and registered those invoices in its accounts.
42      Next, it follows from the order for reference that Aptiv appears to have acted in good faith. Indeed, the referring court expressly points out that the second-tier tax authority did not make a finding of tax evasion and that the State budget has not been adversely affected in the present case as a result of Aptiv’s conduct.
43      In addition, that court points out that the limitation period for asserting the right to deduct VAT under national legislation had not expired at the time Aptiv exercised that right.
44      Lastly, it is apparent from the order for reference that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns neither a situation capable of falling within the scope of Article 178(d) of the VAT Directive, since it relates exclusively to intra-Community acquisitions of goods and not transactions treated as such, nor a situation capable of falling within the scope of Article 181 of that directive, which implies that the deduction of VAT was applied for in the absence of an invoice complying with the requirements of that directive. In those circumstances, Article 178(d) and Article 181 of the VAT Directive are irrelevant in order to answer the question referred.
45      Accordingly, the question referred should be construed as asking the Court to determine whether Article 168(c), Article 178(c), and Articles 179, 180 and 182 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and an administrative practice under which the deduction of VAT relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods is refused on the ground that the taxable person exercised his or her right of deduction in the tax period during which he or she actually received the invoices necessary for the exercise of that right, which was subsequent to the period during which those acquisitions had been made, even though that taxable person exercised that right in good faith and within the limitation period laid down by national legislation in order to assert that right.
46      As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, in the context of intra-Community acquisitions, under the reverse charge procedure, no VAT payment takes place between the person acquiring the goods and the supplier of those goods, the former being liable, in respect of the intra-Community acquisitions made, for input VAT, while being able, in principle, to deduct that tax so that no tax is payable to the tax authorities (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
47      According to settled case-law, the right of taxable persons to deduct the VAT due or already paid on goods purchased and services received as inputs from the VAT which they are liable to pay is a fundamental principle of the common system of VAT established by EU legislation. As the Court has repeatedly held, the right of deduction is an integral part of the VAT scheme and in principle may not be limited (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
48      The deduction system is intended to relieve the operator entirely of the burden of the VAT due or paid in the course of all of his or her economic activities. The common system of VAT therefore ensures that all economic activities, whatever their purpose or results, provided that they are in principle themselves subject to VAT, are taxed in a neutral way (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
49      Under Article 167 of the VAT Directive, a right to deduct input VAT arises at the time when the deductible tax becomes chargeable. According to Article 69 of that directive, in the case of the intra-Community acquisition of goods, VAT becomes chargeable on issue of the invoice, or on expiry of the period referred to in the first paragraph of Article 222 of that directive if no invoice has been issued by that time (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 34).
50      Moreover, the right to deduct VAT is subject to compliance with the substantive and formal conditions laid down by the VAT Directive (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
51      The substantive conditions that must be met in order for the right to deduct VAT due on intra-Community acquisitions of goods to arise, pursuant to Article 2(1)(b)(i) of the VAT Directive, are listed in Article 168(c) of that directive. Those conditions stipulate that those acquisitions must have been effected by a taxable person, that that person must also be liable for the VAT payable on those acquisitions, and that the goods in question must be used for the purposes of that person’s taxable transactions (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 36).
52      The formal requirements governing the right to deduct VAT, by contrast, regulate the rules governing its exercise and monitoring thereof and the smooth functioning of the common system of VAT, such as the obligations relating to accounts, invoicing and filing returns (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
53      With regard to VAT due on intra-Community acquisitions, it is apparent from Article 178(c) of the VAT Directive that the exercise of the right of deduction is subject to the condition that the taxable person has set out in the VAT return provided for in Article 250 of that directive all the information needed for the amount of VAT due on his or her intra-Community acquisitions of goods to be calculated and that he or she holds an invoice drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 3 of Title XI of the VAT Directive (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 38). Holding an invoice showing the details mentioned in Article 226 of the VAT Directive is a formal condition and not a substantive condition of the right to deduct VAT (judgment of 15 September 2016, Senatex, C‑518/14, EU:C:2016:691, paragraph 38).
54      Moreover, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 179 of the VAT Directive, the deduction is to be made by subtracting from the total amount of VAT due for a given accounting period the total amount of VAT ‘in respect of which, during the same period, the right of deduction has arisen and is exercised in accordance with Article 178’ (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 39).
55      The Court has also stated that, although, under Article 167 of the VAT Directive, the right to deduct VAT arises at the same time as the tax becomes chargeable, Article 178 of that directive provides that it can be exercised only once the taxable person holds an invoice (judgment of 21 March 2018, Volkswagen, C‑533/16, EU:C:2018:204, paragraph 43).
56      It follows that the right to deduct must, in principle, be exercised in respect of the tax period in which the two cumulative conditions referred to in paragraphs 54 and 55 above are satisfied, namely that the right to deduct VAT has arisen and that the taxable person is in possession of the relevant invoices (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 April 2004, Terra Baubedarf-Handel, C‑152/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:268, paragraph 38, and of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 40).
57      Furthermore, as is apparent from Articles 180 and 182 of the VAT Directive, the exercise of the right to deduct may be accepted even where it was not exercised in respect of the tax period during which that right arose, subject to compliance with the conditions and the procedures laid down by national legislation (see judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 42).
58      In the present case, and subject to the verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, it appears that the substantive and formal conditions giving rise to the right to deduct VAT were cumulatively met only in 2021, since it was only in that year that Aptiv was in possession of the invoices necessary to exercise the right to deduct VAT relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods made between 2016 and 2018, with the result that it could not exercise that right by means of VAT returns relating to those latter periods.
59      Nevertheless, according to the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, where a taxable person belatedly receives the invoices necessary to exercise the right to deduct VAT relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods, he or she cannot make that deduction in a VAT return in respect of the period during which those invoices were received.
60      In such circumstances, and again under the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable person could, as long as the limitation period has not expired, submit an application for self-correction seeking to reduce the total amount of VAT due for a tax period by the amount of any deductible input tax which arose in the period during which those acquisitions were made or before, but not beyond one calendar year preceding the calendar year which includes that tax period.
61      In that regard, it has also been held that the fundamental principle of VAT neutrality requires deduction of input tax to be allowed if the substantive requirements are satisfied, even if the taxable person has failed to comply with some of the formal requirements. Where the tax authority has the information necessary to establish that the taxable person, as the recipient of the transactions in question, is liable for VAT, it cannot impose, as regards the taxable person’s right to deduct that tax, additional conditions which may have the effect of rendering that right ineffective. The position may be different if the failure to comply with such formal requirements effectively prevents the production of conclusive evidence that the substantive requirements have been satisfied (judgment of 18 March 2021, A. (Exercise of the right of deduction), C‑895/19, EU:C:2021:216, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
62      In those circumstances, it must be held that the exercise of the right to deduct VAT relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods in the tax period during which the taxable person, acting in good faith and within the applicable limitation period, actually received the invoices necessary for the exercise of that right appears to comply with Article 168(c), Article 178(c) and Article 179 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, even where that tax period is subsequent to that during which those acquisitions were made and the right to deduct VAT is exercised beyond the period within which the self-correction procedure provided for by national law and referred to in paragraph 60 above could be implemented.
63      No other conclusion can be derived from the Court’s case-law according to which the Member States may lay down, on grounds of legal certainty, a limitation period the expiry of which has the effect of penalising a taxable person who has not been sufficiently diligent and has failed to claim deduction of input tax, by making him or her forfeit his or her right of deduction, in so far as that limitation period complies with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 April 2018, Zabrus Siret, C‑81/17, EU:C:2018:283, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
64      The principle of effectiveness, mentioned by the referring court, requires, according to consistent case-law, that the detailed procedural rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT laid down in national law do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of that right (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 July 2012, Littlewoods Retail and Others, C‑591/10, EU:C:2012:478, paragraph 28, and of 24 February 2022, SC Cridar Cons, C‑582/20, EU:C:2022:114, paragraph 42).
65      National legislation or a national administrative practice under which the right to deduct VAT is refused on the sole ground that it was exercised in a tax period subsequent to that during which the intra-Community acquisitions of goods were made is liable to render the exercise of that right impossible in practice or excessively difficult, where the taxable person was unable to exercise the right to deduct VAT during the previous tax periods because he or she was not at that time in possession of the invoices necessary to exercise that right.
66      Furthermore, it is apparent from the order for reference that it was impossible for Aptiv to exercise its right of deduction in the context of other procedural mechanisms provided for by national law, such as, first, the self-correction procedure, referred to in paragraph 60 above, on the ground that, at the time when Aptiv received the invoices in question, it was too late to make such a self-correction, and, second, the special refund procedure, in relation to which the referring court states that the second-tier tax authority rejected Aptiv’s application to that effect.
67      In those circumstances, it must be held that national legislation which does not allow a taxable person acting in good faith and within the limitation period to exercise his or her right to deduct VAT in the tax period during which he or she actually received the invoices necessary to exercise that right renders the exercise of that right practically impossible or, at the very least, excessively difficult, with the result that the principle of effectiveness is not complied with.
68      As regards the principle of proportionality, also mentioned by the referring court, it should be noted in particular that, under Article 273 of the VAT Directive, the Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary for the correct collection of VAT and for the prevention of evasion. The prevention of tax evasion, avoidance and abuse constitutes a recognised objective and is encouraged by that directive. However, the measures which the Member States may adopt under Article 273 of that directive must not go further than necessary to attain such objectives. Therefore, they cannot be used in such a way that they would have the effect of systematically undermining the right to deduct VAT and, consequently, the neutrality of VAT (judgment of 21 March 2018, Volkswagen, C‑533/16, EU:C:2018:204, paragraph 48).
69      Even if national legislation or a
national administrative practice which does not allow a taxable person to exercise his or her right to deduct VAT in the tax period during which he or she was actually in possession of the invoices necessary to exercise that right is intended to combat possible tax evasion, avoidance and abuse, it is sufficient to note that, in the present case, as is apparent from paragraph 42 above, Aptiv appears to have acted in good faith and the second-level tax authority did not make a finding of tax evasion.
70      In those circumstances, such national legislation or such a
national administrative practice would appear capable of systematically undermining the exercise of the right to deduct VAT and, therefore, the neutrality of VAT, even if the taxable person concerned acted in good faith and within the applicable limitation period.
71      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 168(c), Article 178(c), and Articles 179, 180 and 182 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and an administrative practice under which the deduction of VAT relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods is refused on the ground that the taxable person exercised his or her right of deduction in the tax period during which he or she actually received the invoices necessary for the exercise of that right, which was subsequent to the period during which those acquisitions had been made, even though that taxable person exercised that right in good faith and within the limitation period.
Costs
72      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 168(c), Article 178(c), and Articles 179, 180 and 182 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, read in the light of the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and effectiveness,
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and an administrative practice under which the deduction of value added tax relating to intra-Community acquisitions of goods is refused on the ground that the taxable person exercised his or her right of deduction in the tax period during which he or she actually received the invoices necessary for the exercise of that right, which was subsequent to the period during which those acquisitions had been made, even though that taxable person exercised that right in good faith and within the limitation period.
[Signatures]
*      Language of the case: Hungarian.