CELEX: 62014CN0123
Language: en
Date: 2014-03-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-123/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 March 2014  — Itales ООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

19.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 151/14
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 March 2014 — Itales ООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   (Case C-123/14)
   2014/C 151/18
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Administrativen sad — Varna
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Itales ООD
   
      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of the Council and of the European Parliament of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted so that, where goods are sold to a third party, a right to deduct input tax arises by virtue of their purchase, even if there is no proof that the previous supplier possessed goods of the same kind?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is the administrative practice of the Natsionalna Agentsia po prihodite (National Income Tax Agency), according to which persons liable to VAT within the meaning of the Zakon za danan varhu dobaveneta stoynost (VAT law) are denied the right to deduct input tax in cases where there is no proof of the origin of the goods, without suspicion of involvement in tax fraud having being expressed and/or objective evidence provided by the tax authorities which would indicate that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.