Case C-461/21, Cartrans Preda: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — SC Cartrans Preda SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Exemptions — Road carriage transactions directly connected with the import of goods — Rules of evidence — Articles 56 and 57 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Recovery of VAT by a non-resident — Taxation of consideration paid by way of a tax on the income of non-resident persons — Tax withheld at source by a resident)
Date: 2023-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carriage of goods, customs document, customs formalities, customs valuation, freedom to provide services, freight rate, import (EU), tax exemption, transport document








C_202300186EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/186


23.10.2023





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — SC Cartrans Preda SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova
(Case C-461/21, (1) Cartrans Preda)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Exemptions - Road carriage transactions directly connected with the import of goods - Rules of evidence - Articles 56 and 57 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Recovery of VAT by a non-resident - Taxation of consideration paid by way of a tax on the income of non-resident persons - Tax withheld at source by a resident)
(C/2023/186)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Prahova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Cartrans Preda SRL

Defendant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 86(1)(b) and (2) and Article 144 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to benefit from the value added tax (VAT) exemption provided for carriage services connected with the importation of goods, where the carriage of merchandise imported into the European Union is carried out by a taxable person between the Member State in whose territory the place where those goods are introduced into the European Union is situated and a place of destination in another Member State, recording the import transaction does not mean, on that very same basis and systematically, that the costs of that carriage are included in the taxable amount for VAT purposes of the imported merchandise.










2.


Article 86(1)(b) and (2) and Article 144 of the Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax practice of automatically refusing the exemption from VAT for carriage services connected with the importation of goods, on the ground that the person liable has not produced the specific documents required by national legislation, even though that person has produced other documents — there being no reason to doubt the authenticity and reliability of those documents — capable of establishing that the conditions for entitlement to exemption from VAT laid down in those provisions are satisfied.










3.


Articles 56 and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, first, an activity consisting of recovering VAT and excise duties from the tax authorities of several Member States constitutes a supply of services, within the meaning of those articles, and, second, that the application of withholding at source tax on income received for a supply of services by a non-resident service provider, whereas an equivalent supply made by a resident service provider would not be subject to such withholding, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services. That restriction may be justified by the need to ensure the effective collection of tax, in so far as it is appropriate for attaining that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.










4.


Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, as a general rule, non-resident service providers are taxed at source on income received in the form of remuneration for services provided, without allowing them the possibility of deducting business expenses directly connected with those activities, whereas resident service providers do have the possibility to do so, unless the restriction on the freedom to provide services which that legislation entails responds to a legitimate objective that is compatible with the FEU Treaty and is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest.






(1)  
            OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/186/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)