VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Intra-Community supply EU VAT case law

33 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2004 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 33 cases, most recent first

Under each case, what the Court decided, from its summary. The summaries are AI-generated and are not official documents: open the case for the Court’s own text.

C-521/24 Aptiv Services Hungary

Judgment · 12 March 2026 · Hungary

Late receipt of invoices and the period for deducting acquisition VAT

The Court held that those provisions preclude such national rules and practice. Where the substantive conditions are met and the invoices, a formal condition, arrived only later, the two cumulative conditions for exercise are satisfied in the period of receipt, and confining the taxable person to a self-correction that has already expired makes the right practically impossible or excessively difficult. The qualification is that the taxable person must have acted in good faith, with no fraud established, and within the applicable limitation period. Relevant to any business making intra-Community acquisitions where supplier invoices arrive years late, and to groups with decentralised invoice capture.

T-638/24 Finanzamt Österreich (Intra-Community acquisition and supply – double taxation)

Judgment · 25 February 2026 · Austria

Article 41 taxation of intra-Community acquisitions alongside liability for VAT wrongly shown on the invoice

They do not preclude it. Articles 41 and 203 have distinct conditions and purposes and may apply simultaneously. The Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w W. case is distinguished because there the supply had been definitively treated as non-exempt and taxed, whereas an Article 203 liability arises from the invoice alone, not from taxation of the supply, and can in principle be corrected. The second question was not examined. Businesses that quote the departure Member State's VAT number on cross-border purchases can face acquisition tax there under Article 41 even where the supplier has also been made liable for VAT wrongly shown on the invoice. Relevant to periods before Directive 2018/1910.

C-234/24 Brose Prievidza

Judgment · 23 October 2025 · Bulgaria

Refund of VAT on tooling that never leaves the supplier's Member State

Refusal is precluded where the equipment has not physically left the territory of the supplier's Member State, unless, on all the circumstances, that supply forms part of a single indivisible economic supply with, or is ancillary to, the intra-Community supplies of the goods produced using it. Without physical movement to the acquirer there is no intra-Community acquisition and hence no exempt supply. Supplies by two independent suppliers, separately contracted and invoiced, with no abuse alleged, are normally independent. Useful for manufacturers and contract manufacturing groups where tooling is bought, often via a central group purchasing entity, and left with the producer.

C-602/24 W. (Export without the knowledge of the taxable person)

Judgment · 1 August 2025 · Poland

Export exemption where the customer exports without the supplier's knowledge

The exemption applies. Where the right to dispose as owner passed, the goods physically left the European Union and there was no consumption inside it, the objective conditions of Article 146(1)(b) are met. The parties' original intention to make an intra-Community supply and the supplier's ignorance of the export are subjective factors and irrelevant, as is the fact that the tax authorities, not the supplier, produced the proof. The limits remain because formal breaches preventing conclusive proof of the substantive conditions, or the supplier's knowing participation in evasion. Relevant wherever a supplier zero-rates on the basis of the customer's transport documents and the goods turn out to have gone to a third country instead.

C-676/22 B2 Energy

Judgment · 29 February 2024 · Czechia

Proving the acquirer's taxable status for an intra-Community supply

The exemption must be refused where the supplier has not shown that the goods were supplied to a recipient having taxable status in the Member State of arrival and, in the light of the factual circumstances and the evidence supplied, the information needed to verify that status is lacking. Physical delivery to the recipient named in the tax documents is not itself a substantive condition. Authorities must weigh all documents held. Only if verification remains impossible is refusal justified, and then no proof of fraud is needed. Relevant to traders whose CMR notes, delivery notes, weighbridge tickets and bank statements show receipt by a party other than the invoiced customer, notably in bulk commodity and agri-oil chains.

C-180/22 Mensing II

Judgment · 13 July 2023 · Germany

Margin scheme, acquisition VAT and the profit margin

The acquisition VAT forms part of the taxable amount. "Purchase price" in Article 312(2) covers only what the dealer pays his supplier, not tax paid to the Treasury, and the VAT to be deducted under Article 315 is that on the sale itself. Fiscal neutrality and the aim of preventing double taxation cannot override clear wording, even though domestic purchases and self-imports (Article 317, second paragraph) are treated more favourably. Only the EU legislature can change this. Art and antiques dealers using the margin scheme for works acquired cross-border from creators or their successors face a higher taxable amount than on equivalent domestic purchases or own imports, because acquisition VAT is neither deductible nor a margin reduction.

C-664/21 NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS

Judgment · 2 March 2023 · Slovenia

Time limits for producing proof of an intra-Community supply

They do not preclude such legislation, provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. The Court stressed the qualification. Where the evidence is offered before any assessment notice has been adopted, a refusal to take it into account must rest on particular circumstances, for instance an unjustified delay or a loss of tax revenue. Blanket exclusion at that early stage, ignoring the taxpayer's explanations, is hard to reconcile with proportionality and neutrality. The national court must assess this. National evidential cut-offs in audit procedures survive, but they cannot be applied mechanically.

C-696/20 Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w W. (Incorrect classification of chain transactions)

Judgment · 7 July 2022 · Poland

Article 41 safety net where a chain transaction is misclassified

Article 41 applies even where the Member State of identification is the Member State of departure, and taxation there is not excluded merely because the customers taxed the separate later transaction at destination. It does, however, preclude such taxation where the intra-Community supply giving rise to the acquisition has not been treated as exempt in that Member State. Taxing both breaches proportionality and neutrality, and no risk of avoidance arises.

C-895/19 A. (Exercise of the right of deduction)

Judgment · 18 March 2021

A three-month deadline that split the deduction from the tax on an intra-Community acquisition

The Court held that Articles 167 and 178 preclude such national legislation. The right to deduct arises at the time the deductible tax becomes chargeable, and in the case of an intra-Community acquisition the tax due and the deduction relate to the same period. A national rule making the exercise of the deduction in that period dependent on compliance with a declaration deadline subjects the substantive right to a formal requirement, produces a charge to interest on a sum which the taxable person did not in fact owe to the treasury, and goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the correct collection of the tax and to prevent evasion. The judgment applies to the reverse charge on intra-Community acquisitions the distinction between formal and substantive requirements that runs through Ecotrade and its line.

C-242/19 CHEP Equipment Pooling

Judgment · 11 June 2020 · Romania

Cross-border refund where the claimant should have been VAT registered

The derogation applies only where two cumulative conditions are met: the use of the goods in the destination Member State for the service supplied is temporary, and the goods were dispatched from the Member State where the supplier is established. Goods sent from other Member States, or used for an indefinite or extended period, fall outside it. Separately, refunds cannot be refused merely because the claimant is or should be VAT identified in the refund State. Only the cumulative conditions in Article 3 of Directive 2008/9 matter. Relevant to pooling, leasing and equipment hire structures moving assets around the EU, and to anyone facing a refund refusal grounded in national registration requirements.

C-401/18 Herst

Judgment · 23 April 2020 · Czechia

Ascribing the intra-Community transport in a fuel chain under duty suspension

Such a person acquires the right to dispose of the goods as owner provided it can take decisions capable of affecting their legal situation, notably the decision to sell. Its initial intention to purchase after release for free circulation is one factor in the national court's overall assessment of which acquisition the single transport is ascribed to. Duty suspension is not decisive. EU law precludes reliance on in dubio mitius to adopt an interpretation the Court has held incompatible with EU law. Confirms and extends AREX CZ for fuel and other excise goods traders.

C-273/18 Kuršu zeme

Judgment · 10 July 2019 · Latvia

Refusing deduction in a supply chain requires proof of an undue tax advantage

Those two facts, a chain of successive sales and collection from a warehouse of someone other than the invoiced supplier, are not in themselves sufficient to establish an abusive practice. The authority must identify the undue tax advantage obtained by the taxable person or the other participants. Where no such evidence is adduced, deduction cannot be refused. Separately, the national court must still determine to which supply in the chain the single intra-Community transport is ascribed, which governs the extent of the deduction or refund right. Useful for anyone facing a Baltic or wider EU audit where deduction is denied simply because intermediaries appear economically pointless.

C-531/17 Vetsch Int. Transporte

Judgment · 14 February 2019 · Austria

Import exemption under customs procedure 42 and downstream fraud

The exemption may not be refused. The import followed by the intra-Community transfer, and the later fraudulent intra-Community supply, are independent transactions. Where the fraud does not concern the transfer on which the import exemption depends, and there is no evidence that the importer knew or ought to have known of the recipient's fraud in the subsequent transaction, the exemption stands. It is for the Member State of the fraudulent supply (Bulgaria) to refuse exemption there. Useful for freight forwarders, customs agents and indirect representatives exposed to import VAT under procedure 42 arrangements.

C-414/17 AREX CZ

Judgment · 19 December 2018 · Czechia

Ascribing the transport in chain supplies of excise goods

Article 2(1)(b)(iii) covers only taxable persons whose other intra-Community acquisitions fall outside VAT under Article 3(1). Other taxable persons are dealt with under Article 2(1)(b)(i). Liability for excise duty in the Member State of destination does not make that trader's acquisition the intra-Community one if the single transport cannot be ascribed to it. Movement under duty suspension is not decisive. The usual global assessment applies, turning on when the power to dispose as owner passed relative to the transport. Fuel, alcohol and tobacco chains are analysed for VAT on exactly the same basis as any other chain transaction. Relevant to energy traders, excise warehousekeepers and their advisers reviewing historic and current supply chain structures.

C-264/17 Mensing

Judgment · 29 November 2018 · Germany

Margin scheme for works of art acquired intra-Community from the artist

The option in Article 316(1)(b) is autonomous and additional to Article 314, so Member States cannot make it conditional on the Article 314 categories. The margin scheme is therefore available on resale of works of art acquired from the creator or successors in title via an exempt intra-Community supply. But a dealer invoking the Directive directly takes the scheme on the Directive's terms. He cannot combine it with deduction of the acquisition VAT precluded by Article 322(b), even if that provision is untransposed. Art dealers, galleries and auction operators buying directly from artists or their heirs in other Member States can rely on Article 316(1)(b) to apply the margin scheme on resale, notwithstanding national rules restricting it to domestic input supplies.

C-528/17 Božičevič Ježovnik

Judgment · 25 October 2018 · Slovenia

Import VAT exemption under customs procedure 42 and the importer's good faith

Import VAT liability is not aligned with customs debt liability. Where the exemption was granted following a prior customs examination of the importer's evidence, VAT cannot be recovered after the event merely because the substantive conditions turned out to be unmet. The exception is that recovery is possible where objective evidence shows the importer knew or should have known that the onward supplies were involved in the customer's fraud and failed to take all reasonable steps to avoid it. The national court must decide this. Confirms that procedure 42 importers are treated like intra-Community suppliers, not like customs debtors. Relevant to importers, freight forwarders and tax representatives using procedure 42, and to advisers defending post-clearance assessments in commodity trades.

C-108/17 Enteco Baltic

Judgment · 20 June 2018 · Lithuania

Import VAT exemption where the import is followed by an intra-Community supply

Naming a different purchaser is a formal breach only, so the exemption stands where the substantive Article 138(1) conditions are met and the change was notified, unless the importer knowingly participated in evasion or the breach prevents proof. E-AD drafts and CMR notes presented at importation can prove intended dispatch. E-ROR confirmations and reports of receipt can prove actual dispatch, including to a warehouse rather than the buyer. Good faith protects the importer unless he knew or should have known of the purchaser's fraud. Electronic communication alone proves nothing. Authorities need not gather information themselves. Relevant to fuel and commodity traders using customs procedure 42, and to their customs and excise advisers.

C-628/16 Kreuzmayr

Judgment · 21 February 2018 · Austria

Ascribing the transport in a chain supply and deduction of wrongly invoiced VAT

The transport is ascribed to the second supply where the final purchaser obtained the right to dispose of the goods as owner before the transport began. Article 32 therefore applies to that second supply. The first supplier's misinformed classification and the intermediary's destination-State VAT number are irrelevant, because both the intermediary and the final purchaser knew the objective facts. VAT due only because it appears on an invoice is not deductible, and legitimate expectations cannot be invoked against a supplier. Recovery lies against the invoicing party under national law. Confirms that chain-transaction analysis rests on objective evidence known to the intermediary and final purchaser, not on the first supplier's treatment or the VAT number quoted. Relevant to commodity and fuel traders, distribution chains using collection numbers and ex works terms, and advisers reviewing invoicing positions in triangular sales.

C-386/16 Toridas

Judgment · 26 July 2017 · Lithuania

Ascribing the single intra-Community transport in a chain supply

The first supply is not exempt where the second supply actually took place before the goods left the first Member State and the goods were then transported to the second purchaser. The single transport is ascribed to the second supply alone. The middleman's VAT identification in another Member State is not a criterion for classifying an intra-Community transaction, nor sufficient evidence of one. Processing after the first supply has no bearing, since the substantive conditions of Article 138(1) are exhaustive. A risk of double taxation does not justify exemption. Confirms that in back-to-back chains the decisive point is when the power to dispose as owner passes to the final customer, not who arranges transport or where the middleman is registered. Relevant to food, commodity and distribution chains using intermediaries, and to advisers relying on a customer's foreign VAT number as comfort for zero-rating.

C-26/16 Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis

Judgment · 14 June 2017 · Portugal

Exemption for intra-Community supplies of new means of transport

The conditions in Article 138(2)(a) are exhaustive. No residence or domicile requirement may be imposed, and temporary registration in the destination State is not in itself a ground for refusal. The vendor cannot be required to prove definitive use or that acquisition VAT was paid. The exemption may be refused for purchaser fraud only where objective evidence shows the vendor knew or ought to have known and failed to take all reasonable steps, a matter for the national court. Relevant to vehicle, boat and aircraft dealers selling new means of transport cross-border to private individuals, and to advisers dealing with Member States that in practice demand proof of the buyer's residence or of definitive registration and taxation in the destination State.

C-21/16 Euro Tyre

Judgment · 9 February 2017 · Portugal

VIES registration of the customer and the intra-Community supply exemption

Exemption cannot be refused on that sole ground. Possession of a VAT number valid for intra-Community transactions and VIES registration are formal requirements, not substantive conditions under Article 138(1), provided there is no sound evidence of fraud and the substantive conditions are established. The vendor's awareness of the customer's registration position and its expectation of retroactive registration do not justify refusal. Formal failure remains fatal only where the taxable person intentionally participated in evasion or where it prevents conclusive proof of the substantive conditions. Confirms the Plöckl and VSTR line for the customer's registration status. Relevant to distribution groups selling cross-border to newly established or newly registered affiliates, and to anyone facing assessments based on VIES checks alone.

C-131/13 Schoenimport Italmoda Mariano Previti and Others

Judgment · 18 December 2014 · Netherlands

Refusing deduction, exemption and refund for known evasion without a national rule

The Court held that it is for the national authorities and courts to refuse those rights even in the absence of any provision of national law providing for refusal, where it is established on objective factors that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction relied on formed part of evasion committed in a chain of supplies. It further held that the benefit may be refused notwithstanding that the evasion was carried out in a Member State other than the one in which the rights are claimed, and notwithstanding formal compliance with that State's legislation. The strongest statement of the anti-abuse principle in the VAT field.

C-492/13 Traum

Judgment · 9 October 2014 · Bulgaria

Evidence required for intra-Community supply exemption

Refusal is precluded where the evidence supplied matches the list of documents prescribed by national law and was initially accepted by the authorities as establishing entitlement. Retroactive removal of the purchaser's VAT number cannot in itself defeat exemption. The national court must verify this, and exemption is lost if objective evidence shows the supplier knew or should have known of fraud by the purchaser and failed to take reasonable steps. Article 138(1) has direct effect. Confirms that suppliers relying on the national list of proofs, and on VIES data checked and accepted by the tax authority, cannot later be taxed because that authority invents additional requirements such as signature authentication or proof of the signatory's mandate.

C-446/13 Fonderie 2A

Judgment · 2 October 2014 · France

Place of supply where goods are finished in the customer's Member State before delivery

The place of supply is in the Member State where the customer is established. Dispatch to the subcontractor does not transfer the right to dispose of the goods as owner. It merely renders them compliant with the contract. Only the finished goods were the subject of the contract, and they were already in the customer's Member State when transport to the customer began, there being no sufficient temporal and material link or continuity with the initial movement. Manufacturers who send goods cross-border for finishing, painting, assembly or similar work before delivering to a customer in that same State make a domestic supply there, not an intra-Community supply. Relevant to industrial supply chains using toll processors, and to advisers reviewing refund claims refused on place of supply grounds.

C-587/10 VSTR

Judgment · 27 September 2012 · Germany

Exemption refused for want of the customer's VAT identification number

Such a national requirement is permissible, but exemption cannot be refused on that ground alone where the supplier, acting in good faith and having taken all measures reasonably required, cannot supply the number yet produces other evidence sufficiently showing the customer is a taxable person acting as such. The customer's third-country establishment is irrelevant. The Court also noted that, in chain transactions, exemption of the first supply depends on the transport being ascribable to it, a matter for the national court. Confirms the identification number as a formal, not substantive, condition: suppliers in chain transactions who requested the number and were given the onward customer's number instead retain the exemption if good faith and taxable status are otherwise evidenced.

C-273/11 Mecsek-Gabona

Judgment · 6 September 2012 · Hungary

Evidence of intra-Community supply where the purchaser collects the goods

Article 138(1) does not preclude refusal of the exemption where it is established on objective evidence either that the vendor failed to meet its evidential obligations under national law and general practice for similar transactions, or that it knew or should have known the transaction formed part of the purchaser's fraud and had not taken every reasonable step to prevent its participation. That assessment is for the national court. But the exemption cannot be refused solely because of retroactive deregistration of the purchaser's VAT number. Confirms that in ex works sales where the customer collects, the vendor's evidence necessarily depends on what the customer supplies, and conclusive proof of physical exit cannot be demanded.

C-285/09 R.

Judgment · 7 December 2010 · Germany

Refusal of the intra-Community supply exemption where the supplier conceals the true purchaser

The Member State of departure may refuse the exemption. Producing false invoices and returns compromises the transitional arrangements, which rest on taxable persons' own evidence, and falls within the Member States' power under the opening words of Article 28c(A) to prevent evasion. Proportionality, neutrality, legal certainty and legitimate expectations do not assist a supplier who has intentionally participated in the evasion. The holding is expressly confined to circumstances of the supplier's own active concealment. Confirms that exemption can be denied to a supplier who is a knowing participant in the fraud, even where dispatch is undisputed and the tax loss arises abroad. Relevant to traders in high-value mobile goods (vehicles, electronics) and their advisers.

C-84/09 X

Judgment · 18 November 2010 · Sweden

Intra-Community acquisition of a new means of transport, timing of transport and of the newness test

No time limit for commencing or completing the transport can be imposed. A temporal and material link between supply and transport, and continuity in the transaction, are required. For new means of transport, the intra-Community character rests on an overall assessment of objective circumstances plus the purchaser's intentions supported by objective evidence identifying the Member State of final use. Newness is judged when the vendor transfers the right to dispose as owner, not on arrival. Interim private use, even for months, does not preclude that classification. Relevant to boat, aircraft and vehicle dealers selling cross-border to private buyers, and to advisers on yacht acquisitions.

C-228/09 Commission v Poland

Judgment · 20 May 2010 · Poland

Poland could include its registration duty in the taxable amount for cars

The Court dismisses the action. Poland did not infringe those provisions by including the duty in the taxable amount. The duty is a charge borne in connection with the transaction rather than a sum paid in the name and for the account of the customer, so it falls within the taxes, duties, levies and charges that Article 78 requires to be included. The Commission was ordered to pay the costs. A useful contrast with De Danske Bilimportorer, where the Danish registration duty stayed outside the taxable amount.

C-409/04 Teleos and Others

Judgment · 27 September 2007 · United Kingdom

Good faith and proof of removal on intra-Community supplies

The exemption applies, and an intra-Community acquisition occurs, only where the right to dispose as owner has passed and the supplier establishes that the goods have physically left the Member State of supply. Intention is irrelevant. However, where a supplier acted in good faith, submitted evidence establishing the exemption at first sight which the authorities accepted, and took every reasonable measure in his power to avoid participation in evasion, VAT may not be recovered from him. The purchaser's acquisition declaration is additional, not conclusive, evidence. Zero-rating turns on objective physical removal, so ex-works terms leave the supplier carrying the evidential risk and the drafting of contracts and deposit arrangements matters. Relevant to any exporter of high-risk goods and to tax authorities' post-clearance assessment practice.

C-146/05 Collée

Judgment · 27 September 2007 · Germany

Late proof cannot defeat the exemption for a supply that actually took place

The Court holds that it does not. A national measure which makes exemption conditional on compliance with formal obligations goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the correct collection of the tax where the substantive conditions are met. The referring court may take into account the fact that the taxable person initially concealed the transaction only if there is a risk of loss of tax revenue and that risk has not been wholly eliminated. With Teleos, decided the same day, this is the origin of the substance over form line that runs through Mecsek Gabona, Euro Tyre and Plockl.

C-184/05 Twoh International

Judgment · 27 September 2007 · Netherlands

Whether tax authorities must use mutual assistance to prove an intra-Community supply

The Member State of dispatch is under no such obligation. The burden of proving that the conditions for exemption are met, including that the goods physically left the Member State of origin, lies on the supplier. The mutual assistance instruments govern cooperation between administrations and confer no rights on traders beyond confirmation of a VAT identification number. The word "may" makes a request discretionary. In any event a buyer's acquisition declaration in the destination State would not be decisive proof of departure. Suppliers using ex works or other collect terms cannot shift the evidential gap onto the tax authority by demanding a cross-border enquiry.

C-395/02 Transport Service

Order · 3 March 2004 · Belgium

Recovery of VAT after an incorrectly exempted intra-Community supply

By reasoned order, the Court held that neutrality does not preclude subsequent recovery of VAT from a taxable person who has wrongly invoiced a supply as exempt, and it is irrelevant whether VAT on the later sale to the end user reached the Treasury. It is for the national court to verify whether the exemption conditions were in fact met. Recovery rules are for Member States, but measures to secure collection and prevent fraud must not exceed what is necessary. Confirms that a supplier whose zero-rating fails carries the output tax itself, and cannot point to tax collected further down the chain as an answer.

Related topics

Exemptions for intra-Community transactions · Right of deduction · Exemptions on importation and exportation · Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality · Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement · Proof · Refund of VAT · Supply of goods · Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Principles of neutrality, proportionality and effectiveness