CELEX: 62012CA0271
Language: en
Date: 2013-05-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-271/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge (Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Right to deduct input tax — Obligations of the taxable person — Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices — Omission of mandatory particulars — Refusal of the right to deduct — Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced — Correcting invoices — Right to refund of VAT — Principle of neutrality)

3.8.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 225/35
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge
   (Case C-271/12) (1)
   
   (Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Right to deduct input tax - Obligations of the taxable person - Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices - Omission of mandatory particulars - Refusal of the right to deduct - Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced - Correcting invoices - Right to refund of VAT - Principle of neutrality)
   2013/C 225/60
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour d’appel de Mons
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellants: Petroma Transports SA, Martens Énergie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens
   
      Respondent: État belge
   
      Re:
   
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) — Interpretation of the rules relating to value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Obligation on the part of the taxable person — Right to deduct VAT subject to possession of an invoice which must contain certain particulars — Concept of material particular — Refusal of the right to deduct — Subsequent provision of information as evidence of the occurrence, nature and amount of the services provided — Compatibility with European Union law of national case-law which refuses the right to deduct if mandatory particulars are not entered on the invoice — Interpretation of the principle of neutrality — Effect of inaccuracies in invoices on the obligation of the State to repay the VAT levied.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the right to deduct value added tax may be refused to taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, even if those invoices are supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, nature and amount of the transactions invoiced after such a refusal decision was adopted.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude the tax authority from refusing to refund the value added tax paid by a company providing services, in the case where the exercise of the right to deduct the value added tax levied on those services has been denied to the companies receiving those services by reason of the irregularities confirmed in the invoices issued by that service-providing company.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.