Case C-78/12

‘Evita-K’ EOOD

v

Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad)

‛Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax — Supply of goods — Concept — Right to deduct — Refusal — Actual performance of a taxable transaction — Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 — System for the identification and registration of bovine animals — Ear tags’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 18 July 2013

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Obligations of persons liable for the tax — System for the identification and registration of bovine animals — Invoicing — Obligation to mention, on the invoices, the ear tags of those animals subject to the identification system — Not included

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Obligations of persons liable for the tax — Accounting — Obligation on taxable persons not being agricultural producers subject to a to flat-rate scheme to show in their accounts the supplies of animals and to supply proof that those animals were subject to control in accordance with International Accounting Standard IAS 41 ‘Agriculture’ — Not included

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Supply of goods — Concept — Supply of goods actually carried out — Link to the form of the acquisition of a right of ownership of the goods concerned — Not included — Determination by the referring court whether the supply of goods was actually carried out

Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax, the concept of ‘supply of goods’ for the purposes of that directive and evidence that such a supply has in fact been carried out are not linked to the form of the acquisition of a right of ownership of the goods concerned. It is for the referring court to carry out, in accordance with the national rules relating to evidence, an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the dispute before it in order to determine whether the supplies of goods at issue were actually carried out and whether, as the case may be, a right to deduct may be exercised on the basis of those supplies. (see para. 43, operative part 1)

Article 242 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require taxable persons who are not agricultural producers to show in their accounts the subject-matter of the supplies of goods which they make, when animals are concerned, and to prove that those animals were subject to control in accordance with International Accounting Standard IAS 41 ‘Agriculture’. (see para. 47, operative part 2)

Article 226(6) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a taxable person who carries out supplies of goods concerning animals, which are subject to the identification and registration system established by Regulation No 1760/2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Regulation No 820/97, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, to mention the ear tags of those animals on the invoices relating to those supplies. (see para. 54, operative part 3)