Case C-80/20: 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 (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)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, establishment, invoicing, supply, tax rebate, tax relief








C_2021513EN.01001001.xml










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.










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.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.