CELEX: 62012CA0589
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-589/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v GMAC UK plc (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 11C(1), first subparagraph — Direct effect — Reduction of the taxable amount — Two transactions concerning the same goods — Supply of goods — Cars, sold on a hire purchase basis, repossessed and sold at auction — Abuse of rights)

10.11.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 395/9
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v GMAC UK plc
      (Case C-589/12) (1)
      
      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11C(1), first subparagraph - Direct effect - Reduction of the taxable amount - Two transactions concerning the same goods - Supply of goods - Cars, sold on a hire purchase basis, repossessed and sold at auction - Abuse of rights))
      (2014/C 395/10)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Referring court
      
      Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
      
         Defendant: GMAC UK plc
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The first subparagraph of Article 11C(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, a Member State may not prevent a taxable person from invoking the direct effect of that provision in respect of one transaction by arguing that that person may rely on the provisions of national law in relation to another transaction concerning the same goods and that the cumulative application of those provisions would produce an overall fiscal result which neither national law nor Sixth Directive 77/388, applied separately to those transactions, produces or is intended to produce.
      
         (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.