CELEX: 62018CA0329
Language: en
Date: 2019-10-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-329/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Altic’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Procurement of food products — Deduction of input tax — Refusal of deduction — Possibly fictitious supplier — VAT fraud — Requirements relating to knowledge on the part of the purchaser — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Obligations of traceability of foodstuffs and identification of the supplier — Regulations (CE) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 — Registration obligations of operators in the food sector — Effect on the right to deduct VAT)

9.12.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 413/16
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Altic’ SIA
      (Case C-329/18) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Procurement of food products - Deduction of input tax - Refusal of deduction - Possibly fictitious supplier - VAT fraud - Requirements relating to knowledge on the part of the purchaser - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Obligations of traceability of foodstuffs and identification of the supplier - Regulations (CE) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 - Registration obligations of operators in the food sector - Effect on the right to deduct VAT)
      (2019/C 413/18)
      Language of the case: Latvian
      
         Referring court
      
      Augstākā tiesa
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
      
         Other party:‘Altic’ SIA
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 168(a) 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, must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person who participates in the food chain from being refused the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) on the sole ground, assuming that it has been duly established, that that taxable person has not complied with his obligations under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, to identify his suppliers for the purposes of traceability of foodstuffs, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. Non-compliance with those obligations may, however, constitute one element among others which, taken together and in a consistent manner, tend to show that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was involved in a transaction involving VAT fraud, which it is for the referring court to assess.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as meaning that the failure, by a taxable person who participates in the food chain, to ascertain that his suppliers are registered with the competent authorities, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs and Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, is not relevant for the purpose of determining whether the taxable person knew or should have known that he was involved in a transaction involving VAT fraud.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.