This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CB0123
Case C-123/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of tax neutrality — Deduction of input VAT — Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ — Conditions for establishing a supply of goods — No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods)
Case C-123/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of tax neutrality — Deduction of input VAT — Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ — Conditions for establishing a supply of goods — No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods)
Case C-123/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of tax neutrality — Deduction of input VAT — Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ — Conditions for establishing a supply of goods — No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods)
OJ C 320, 28.9.2015, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 15/07/2015
- Date lodged:
- 14/03/2014
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Bulgarian
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62014CO0123
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
28.9.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 320/6 |
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
(Case C-123/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principle of tax neutrality - Deduction of input VAT - Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ - Conditions for establishing a supply of goods - No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods))
(2015/C 320/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Administrativen sad — Varna
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant:‘Itales’ OOD
Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
Operative part of the order
The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, concerning the right to deduct value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of a Member State from considering that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the consequence that the purchaser is prevented from deducting the value added tax incurred at the time of the purchase, on the ground that the purchaser has not proved either the origin of the goods concerned or that his supplier was in possession of those goods, where that authority has not established that the purchaser was involved in value added tax evasion and knew or ought to have known that the transaction at issue was connected with such evasion.
