VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Proof EU VAT case law

19 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2007 to 2025.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 19 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-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-501/24 Klinka-Geo Trans

Order · 2 May 2025 · Hungary

Refusing deduction where the transaction never took place, without testing knowledge of fraud

Ruling by order, the Court held that the Directive does not preclude a refusal made without any examination of the recipient's knowledge where the authority establishes that the transaction did not take place. The knowledge test belongs to cases where a real transaction is tainted by fraud elsewhere in the chain, not to cases where there was no supply at all. The Court declared itself manifestly without jurisdiction on the second question and the fourth and sixth questions manifestly inadmissible, and confirmed that the national court must disapply directions it considers contrary to clear case law without needing to make a prior reference. The distinction it draws is the one that decides many Hungarian and Romanian disputes.

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-262/24 Pegazus Busz

Order · 12 February 2025 · Hungary

Evidence of fraud must be put to the taxable person, and a lower court may depart from binding directions

Ruling by order, the Court declared several of the questions manifestly inadmissible or answerable from existing case law. On the merits it held that Article 47 of the Charter requires the taxable person to have knowledge of, and to be able to debate on an adversarial basis before the national court, the evidence on which the administration relies to find participation in evasion. It further held that the primacy of EU law and Article 267 TFEU oblige the national court to set aside directions it considers contrary to EU law, without being required to make a preliminary reference first. Two points of real practical weight in fraud cases.

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-537/22 Global Ink Trade

Judgment · 11 January 2024 · Hungary

Due diligence and the burden of proof in denying deduction

A lower court must disregard higher court rulings inconsistent with the Court's interpretation, whether given by judgment or reasoned order. An obligation merely to give reasons for departing is permissible. Refusal for lack of diligence assessed by circular is allowed only if the authority still proves, by objective evidence, fraud and the taxable person's knowledge. No complex, far-reaching checks on counterparties may be required. The authority must follow its own circular, which must be unequivocal and foreseeable. Establishing a circular invoicing chain alone is insufficient. Fraud must be accurately described, though not every operator identified. Relevant to traders facing Hungarian (and comparable) deduction denials based on supplier unreliability or "passive fraud".

C-289/22 A.T.S. 2003

Order · 9 January 2023 · Hungary

Deduction refused for fraud, regulatory breaches up the chain and the taxable person's duty of care

By reasoned order under Article 99. Cost reduction is legitimate because refusal requires a wholly artificial arrangement whose sole or essential aim is a tax advantage contrary to the Directive. A breach of national sector rules is not itself proof of fraud, but may be one indication in an overall assessment. The authority must characterise the fraud and prove participation or knowledge, though not identify every perpetrator. Taxable persons need not verify upstream compliance, unless indications of irregularity call for greater care.

C-512/21 Aquila Part Prod Com

Judgment · 1 December 2022 · Hungary

Proving participation in carousel fraud and the limits of the duty of diligence

The authority cannot rely merely on the existence of a circular invoicing chain. It must accurately describe the constituent elements of the fraud, prove the fraudulent conduct and establish either active participation or that the taxable person knew or ought to have known, though it need not identify every operator. Where fraud indicators exist, greater diligence may be required, but not complex checks equivalent to the authority's own investigations. Food safety breaches cannot alone justify refusal, but may be one element among others. Relevant to any business facing deduction refusals in chain transaction cases, particularly in Hungary and in the food sector.

C-154/20 Kemwater ProChemie

Judgment · 9 December 2021 · Czechia

Deduction where the true supplier is unidentified

Deduction must be refused, without proof of fraud or knowledge of fraud, where the true supplier has not been identified and the taxable person fails to show that the supplier was a taxable person. The qualification is that refusal is only permissible if, on the factual circumstances and the evidence produced, the information needed to verify that status is lacking. Taxable person status is a material condition and may follow from the facts, for example where the volume and price of supplies show the small business exemption cannot apply. Naming the supplier on the invoice is formal.

C-281/20 Ferimet

Judgment · 11 November 2021 · Spain

Deduction where the invoice names a fictitious supplier under the reverse charge

Naming the supplier is a formal condition, but the supplier's status as a taxable person is a material one. Deduction must be refused where, on the facts and the evidence the taxable person produces, the information needed to verify that the true supplier was a taxable person is lacking, or where it is established to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person committed VAT fraud or knew or should have known the transaction was connected with such fraud. Neither a risk of revenue loss nor a tax advantage need be shown. Relevant to scrap, metals and waste traders and anyone self-billing under domestic reverse charges.

C-656/19 BAKATI PLUS

Judgment · 17 December 2020 · Hungary

Retail export scheme and goods carried in travellers' personal luggage

The traveller exemption does not cover goods carried out of the EU for commercial purposes with a view to resale in a third State. Article 147 targets natural persons not acting as economic operators and promotes tourism. But Article 147 is only a special case of Article 146(1)(b), so failure of its conditions does not defeat the export exemption, which turns on objective criteria, not customs formalities or intention. Automatic refusal is precluded, unless the breach prevents proof of actual export or the taxable person knew or should have known of fraud jeopardising the VAT system. Relevant to retailers and wholesalers operating retail export (tax free shopping) schemes near external borders, and to their advisers.

C-610/19 Vikingo Fővállalkozó

Order · 3 September 2020 · Hungary

Refusal of deduction where invoices are held implausible in a supply chain

Ruling by reasoned order under Article 99, the Court held that the Directive precludes that national practice. None of those four grounds, alone or together, justifies refusal. The concept of supply of goods is objective and is satisfied even if the goods were neither made nor supplied by the invoice issuer and the actual source is unidentified. Refusal requires the authorities to prove, on objective evidence, active participation in fraud or that the taxable person knew or should have known of fraud upstream. The penalty and Charter questions were inadmissible. A further restatement, in order form, of Mahagében and Signum Alfa for advisers handling Hungarian and other chain-supply deduction denials, especially in goods trading and machinery purchases.

C-611/19 Crewprint

Order · 3 September 2020 · Hungary

Fraud cannot be inferred from contractual structure, subcontracting chains or personal links

The Court holds that the directive precludes that practice. To justify a refusal it must be established, otherwise than by suppositions based on predetermined criteria, that the taxable person actively participated in a fraud or that it knew or should have known that the transactions were connected with a fraud committed by the invoice issuer. Verifying that is a matter for the referring court. The order is the clearest statement that the indicia so often relied on by tax authorities, an unusual contractual route, a long subcontracting chain, related parties, are starting points for an investigation and not findings of fraud.

C-653/18 Unitel

Judgment · 17 October 2019 · Poland

Export exemption where the actual customer is not identified

Such a blanket practice is precluded. Identification of the acquirer is not a condition of a supply of goods, which depends on the objective criteria of transfer of the right to dispose as owner and physical exit from the European Union. The exemption may nonetheless be refused where the failure to identify the acquirer prevents proof that those substantive conditions are met, or where the taxable person knew or should have known the transaction formed part of a fraud damaging the common VAT system. Fraud in a third country does not automatically exclude this. If refused, there is no taxable transaction and no input tax deduction. Exporters facing assessments because the invoiced customer turns out to be a front cannot be denied the zero rate on that ground alone. Relevant to electronics and other high risk export trades.

C-572/11 Menidzherski biznes reshenia

Order · 4 July 2013 · Bulgaria

No deduction on invoices for transactions that never took place, even if the issuer paid the tax

The Court holds that they do not preclude such a refusal. The right of deduction is linked to the actual carrying out of the supply, and it does not extend to tax which is due solely because it appears on an invoice under Article 203. That the issuer paid the tax, so that no loss of revenue arises, does not change the position. The referring court must make a global assessment of the facts. The order marks the boundary of the substance over form case law.

C-444/12 Hardimpex

Order · 16 May 2013 · Hungary

An upstream irregularity does not defeat deduction absent proof of knowledge

The Court holds that it does preclude that refusal, where it has not been established to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person knew or should have known of the irregularity. The mere fact that the company did not check where the goods came from cannot be a ground for refusing deduction. Subject to the verifications for the referring court, no such knowledge had been shown. One of the Hungarian orders that consolidated the Mahageben and David line into settled practice.

C-80/11 Mahagében and Dávid

Judgment · 21 June 2012 · Hungary

Refusal of deduction for the supplier's misconduct and the buyer's duty of enquiry

The Directive precludes both national practices. Where the substantive and formal conditions for deduction are met, refusal requires the authority to establish, on objective evidence, that the taxable person knew or ought to have known that the transaction was connected with fraud by the invoice issuer or an earlier trader in the chain. No strict liability. General verification duties cannot be imposed where the trader holds no material giving grounds to suspect irregularities. Where there are such indications, enquiries may reasonably be required. The authority, not the taxpayer, bears the burden of proving knowledge or means of knowledge, and cannot shift its investigative function onto customers.

C-79/09 Commission v Netherlands

Judgment · 25 March 2010 · Netherlands

Structural staff secondment as a closely related supply, and the burden of proof in infringement actions

The action was dismissed in full. Whether a supply of staff is temporary or structural is not in itself decisive. What matters is whether it is an end in itself or a means of better enjoying the principal exempt service. The Commission had produced no evidence on that point, nor on the Horizon College conditions, nor that the public bodies acted under the same legal conditions as private traders, nor that any distortion of competition was real rather than hypothetical. Confirmation that duration is not the test for a closely related supply. Relevant to exempt sector employers using shared or joint employment arrangements, and to public bodies seconding officials to cross-border cooperation structures.

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.

Related topics

Origin and scope of right of deduction · Right of deduction · Tax evasion and abuse · Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Obligations of taxable persons · Exemptions on importation and exportation · Direct effect · Primacy of EU law · Fiscal neutrality · Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality