This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021CB0188
Case C-188/21: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Megatherm-Csillaghegy Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Rules governing exercise of that right — Revocation and subsequent reinstatement of a taxable person’s tax identification number — Forfeiture of the right to deduct the VAT relating to transactions carried out during the period preceding that revocation — Principle of proportionality)
Case C-188/21: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Megatherm-Csillaghegy Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Rules governing exercise of that right — Revocation and subsequent reinstatement of a taxable person’s tax identification number — Forfeiture of the right to deduct the VAT relating to transactions carried out during the period preceding that revocation — Principle of proportionality)
Case C-188/21: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Megatherm-Csillaghegy Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Rules governing exercise of that right — Revocation and subsequent reinstatement of a taxable person’s tax identification number — Forfeiture of the right to deduct the VAT relating to transactions carried out during the period preceding that revocation — Principle of proportionality)
OJ C 368, 26.9.2022, p. 4–4
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 03/06/2022
- Date lodged:
- 25/03/2021
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Hungarian
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62021CO0188
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
26.9.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 368/4 |
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Megatherm-Csillaghegy Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-188/21) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct VAT - Rules governing exercise of that right - Revocation and subsequent reinstatement of a taxable person’s tax identification number - Forfeiture of the right to deduct the VAT relating to transactions carried out during the period preceding that revocation - Principle of proportionality)
(2022/C 368/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Kúria
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Megatherm-Csillaghegy Kft.
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Operative part of the order
Articles 63, 167 and 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 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 principles of value added tax (VAT) neutrality and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding a national measure under which a taxable person subject to VAT whose tax identification number was revoked on the ground that it had failed to submit and publish its annual accounts then reinstated, following the rectification of that omission, is deprived of its right to deduct input VAT paid during the period preceding that revocation, even though the substantive requirements giving rise to the right to such a deduction are satisfied and that taxable person has not acted fraudulently or abusively in order to be able to benefit from that right.
