CELEX: 62017CN0314
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-314/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

7.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 256/15
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-314/17)
   (2017/C 256/13)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Varhoven administrativen sad
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD
   
      Respondent: Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   
      Question referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is there a breach of the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness of the common system of value added tax under the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, VAT is levied twice on the same supply, once under the general rules, by the supplier showing the tax in the sales invoice, and a second time, by the customer being charged by means of a tax adjustment notice according to the reverse charge mechanism, and if in practice the right to deduct input VAT is refused and national law makes no provision for the VAT shown in the supplier’s invoice to be rectified following the conclusion of the tax audit procedure?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.