CELEX: 62020CA0358
Language: en
Date: 2021-11-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-358/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Revocation of the VAT identification of a taxable person — Refusal of the right of deduction — Formal requirements)

17.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/7
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor
      (Case C-358/20) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct VAT - Revocation of the VAT identification of a taxable person - Refusal of the right of deduction - Formal requirements)
      (2022/C 24/09)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Judecătoria Oradea
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Promexor Trade SRL
      
         Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 168, Article 213(1), Article 214(1) and Article 273 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 and the principle of value added tax (VAT) neutrality, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding, where the identification of a taxable person for VAT purposes has been revoked because no taxable transactions have been indicated in the VAT returns filed for six consecutive months but where that taxable person continues his or her activities notwithstanding that revocation, national legislation under which the competent tax authority may require that taxable person to pay the VAT due on his or her taxed transactions, provided that he or she can re-register for VAT purposes and deduct the input VAT paid. The fact that the director of the taxable person is a partner in another company which is the subject to insolvency proceedings cannot, in itself, be put forward to systematically refuse the re-registration of that taxable person for VAT purposes.
      
         (1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.