VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Invoicing EU VAT case law

16 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2010 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 16 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.

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-270/24 Granulines Invest

Order · 14 February 2025 · Hungary

A fictitious invoice label does not replace proof of the buyer knowledge of fraud

The Court answers no on both counts. To refuse deduction the authority must establish to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person actively participated in VAT fraud, or knew or should have known that the invoice issuer had committed such a fraud. A defective date on the invoice cannot found a refusal where the authority has all the information needed to check the substantive conditions, and correcting the invoice cannot be made a precondition. A recent restatement, in a reasoned order, of the two pillars of the deduction case law.

C-624/23 SEM Remont

Judgment · 21 November 2024 · Bulgaria

Deduction where the supplier registered late and issued no corrected invoice

Neither the Directive nor the neutrality principle precludes such national legislation. The report was not provided to the recipient, cannot be equated with a contract capable of serving as an invoice, and the recipient neither paid nor was liable to pay the input VAT. The loan arrangement created no such liability and was not an invoice correction. Substantive conditions for deduction were therefore unmet, and the case law on retroactive correction, which presupposes input VAT actually borne, does not apply. Confirms that formal-defect tolerance does not rescue a deduction where the recipient never bore VAT.

C-709/22 Syndyk Masy Upadłości A

Judgment · 12 September 2024 · Poland

Blocked VAT account under the split payment mechanism in insolvency

The restriction is compatible with Articles 273 and 395 and the implementing decision. No provision of the Directive imposes obligations on Member States as to split payment, and the mechanism is not a derogation from Article 206. VAT is not paid to the State early, and the funds remain usable to pay suppliers' VAT and State liabilities, so there is no absolute blocking and no excess pre-financing. The Charter and TEU questions were inadmissible. Payment of municipal property tax is not governed by the Directive. Confirms that Polish split payment survives EU scrutiny, including where the account holder has ceased trading and is in insolvency.

C-83/23 H GmbH (Direct right to a refund of VAT)

Judgment · 5 September 2024 · Germany

Limits of the direct claim against the tax authority for VAT wrongly invoiced

The recipient has no direct claim against the tax authority in those circumstances. Where the tax authority has already refunded the wrongly invoiced VAT to the supplier, it cannot be required to pay it a second time to the recipient, and the Reemtsma case law does not apply. The supplier's liquidation is irrelevant because that case law does not disturb the ranking of creditors, and the authority need not absorb the disruption to the normal refund chain. The direct claim remains an exception, available only where the recipient has exhausted its available remedies against the supplier. Recipients of invoices bearing the wrong Member State's VAT must act promptly against the supplier, including suing for a corrected invoice showing the VAT of the place of supply, before the supplier is refunded or dissolved. Relevant to cross-border leasing and sale and leaseback structures, and to anyone relying on HUMDA.

C-690/22 Shortcut

Order · 24 May 2023 · Portugal

Generic invoice wording such as 'application development services' and the right to deduct

Ruling by reasoned order, the Court held that those provisions preclude such a refusal. The particulars required by Article 226 exist to enable the authorities to check that the tax has been paid and, where appropriate, the existence of the right to deduct. They are not an end in themselves. Where the administration has the information it needs to establish that the substantive conditions are met, it cannot deny the deduction merely because the description on the invoice is expressed in general terms. The substance-over-form line applied to the wording of invoices, and a useful authority for service businesses whose output is hard to itemise.

C-247/21 Luxury Trust Automobil

Judgment · 8 December 2022 · Austria

Invoice wording as a condition of the triangulation simplification

No valid designation: in a triangular transaction the words "Reverse charge" under Article 226(11a) cannot be replaced by another form of wording, however informative. Nor can the omission be cured retrospectively. Adding the reference later is the first issue of the required invoice and has no retroactive effect, because designation of the customer as liable is a substantive condition of Article 42(a), not a formality. The Article 219a question therefore did not need answering. In any event these requirements cannot vary between Member States. Anyone using the Article 141 simplification must put "Reverse charge" on the invoice at the outset.

C-374/16 Geissel

Judgment · 15 November 2017 · Germany

Meaning of "address" on an invoice for input tax deduction

Articles 168(a) and 178(a), read with Article 226(5), preclude national legislation conditioning deduction on the invoice stating the address where the issuer carries out its economic activity. "Address" bears its ordinary broad meaning and covers any address, including a letterbox address, at which the issuer can be contacted. Identification of the issuer, principally via name and VAT identification number, is the purpose. The good faith questions were not answered. Member States cannot add invoice content requirements beyond Article 226, and cannot refuse deduction merely because the supplier's stated address is a postal or registered office address with no activity there. Relevant to any business trading with suppliers operating remotely, online or without business premises, and to German taxpayers whose deductions were denied on this basis.

C-516/14 Barlis 06 - Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos

Judgment · 15 September 2016 · Portugal

Invoice descriptions and refusal of deduction

"Legal services rendered from [a date] until the present date" does not a priori meet Article 226(6). Wording without any start date fails both points 6 and 7, since for supplies giving rise to successive statements of account the period must appear. Verification is for the national court. Deduction cannot be refused solely on those formal defects where the authorities have all the information to check the substantive conditions. They must consider additional information supplied, and may still impose proportionate penalties. Relevant to anyone facing deduction denials based on thin invoice narratives, and to professional firms billing periodic fees.

C-18/13 Maks Pen

Judgment · 13 February 2014 · Bulgaria

Deduction refused where the invoiced supplier did not make the supply

Deduction may be refused on those facts only subject to a twofold condition: the facts amount to fraudulent conduct, and the authorities establish by objective evidence that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction was connected with that fraud. The absence of resources, missing cost entries and false signatures are not in themselves enough. Courts that may raise national law points of their own motion must do the same for the EU fraud rule. Article 273 permits accounting requirements based on international standards, but a revenue recognition test for the time of supply is precluded. Useful where an assessment rests solely on the invoiced supplier's lack of substance or defective paperwork. Relevant to businesses buying subcontracted services and to advisers handling deduction denials in Bulgaria and other Member States using substance-based challenges.

C-78/12 Evita-K

Judgment · 18 July 2013 · Bulgaria

Proof of a supply of goods and formal ownership of livestock

The concept of a supply of goods, and the evidence that one actually took place, are independent of how ownership was acquired. The national court must assess all facts overall, and may look at prior and subsequent transactions and accompanying certificates. Authorities cannot require documents from the issuer showing ear tags. Article 242 does not import IAS 41. Article 226(6) does not require ear tags on invoices. Article 185(1) permits adjustment only where a right to deduct existed initially under Article 168(a). Useful to advisers dealing with livestock, agri-commodity and other fungible goods trades where tax authorities equate defective sector paperwork with a non-existent supply.

C-271/12 Petroma Transports and Others

Judgment · 8 May 2013 · Belgium

Late correction of incomplete invoices and the right to deduct

Correction of defective invoices is not prohibited, but the decisive point is timing. Where the supplementary information reaches the authority only after the refusal decision has been adopted, deduction may be refused. Member States could, under the Sixth Directive, require particulars beyond the listed minimum, provided these are limited to what is necessary and do not make deduction practically impossible. Neutrality gives no right to a refund to the supplier. The services were actually performed, so the VAT was due and correctly paid. Confirms that the Pannon Gép window for regularising invoices closes when the authority takes its decision. Relevant to intra-group service and management charge arrangements, where lump sum invoicing without hours or unit rates remains a common audit target.

C-138/12 Rusedespred

Judgment · 11 April 2013 · Bulgaria

Refund of VAT invoiced in error where the customer's deduction has been definitively refused

Neutrality precludes refusal of the refund in those circumstances. Article 203 exists to remove the risk of loss of tax revenue. Where deduction has been definitively refused that risk is wholly eliminated, and conditioning the refund on a correction that national law makes impossible goes beyond what is necessary. The obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise, so the taxable person may rely on the principle against the national provision. Suppliers who wrongly charge VAT on exempt supplies, notably on older buildings and associated works, have a route to recovery once the customer's deduction has been finally refused, even if the domestic correction or credit note mechanism has by then closed.

C-280/10 Polski Trawertyn

Judgment · 1 March 2012 · Poland

Deduction of pre-incorporation investment costs and invoices in the partners' names

Both national rules are precluded. Preparatory investment by future partners is economic activity, so where national law prevents the partners themselves from recovering the tax (here because the contribution in kind is exempt), the partnership must be able to deduct it. The invoice being in the partners' names is a purely formal defect that cannot defeat deduction where the substantive conditions are met, the payers and the partnership are in substance the same legal entity, and the authorities have the data needed for reliable collection. Fraud or abuse remains recoverable retrospectively. Confirms that start-up and pre-incorporation expenditure is not stranded VAT. Relevant to Polish practice and to any similar exemption of contributions in kind.

C-438/09 Dankowski

Judgment · 22 December 2010 · Poland

Deduction where the supplier is not registered for VAT

Deduction is available: the supplier's failure to declare commencement of activity under Article 22(1) cannot defeat the recipient's right under Article 17(2), provided the invoices contain all the Article 22(3)(b) particulars, in particular enough to identify the issuer and the nature of the services. A tax identification number sufficed here. Article 17(6) does not save a general exclusion of deduction covering all transactions of an unregistered supplier. Such standstill derogations must be specific and are construed strictly. Confirms that registration is a formality on the supplier's side and cannot be turned into a substantive condition for the customer's deduction where the supply is real and used for taxed outputs.

C-368/09 Pannon Gép Centrum

Judgment · 15 July 2010 · Hungary

Corrected invoices and the right to deduct

Those provisions preclude such legislation or practice. Article 226 lists exhaustively the details required, and Member States cannot make deduction conditional on invoice content requirements not laid down by the Directive. Article 273 does not allow additional invoicing obligations. Nothing prohibits correcting an incorrect invoice, and no rule requires corrected invoices and cancelling credit notes to fall in the same series. The qualification is that the material conditions for deduction must be met, and the corrected invoice, containing all Article 226 details, must reach the authority before it decides. Useful for anyone facing deduction refusals founded on invoice formalities. Relevant to construction and subcontracting chains, where completion dates routinely diverge between tiers, and to advisers handling audit correspondence.

Related topics

Right of deduction · Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Fiscal neutrality · Origin and scope of right of deduction · Place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods · Refund of VAT · Tax evasion and abuse · Obligations of taxable persons · Accounting · Tax liability