European Court of Justice VAT cases 2006-3 - empcom.gov.in

y Council Directives 2000/65/EC [...] and 2001/115/EC [...],
is to be interpreted as allowing a Member State to enact
1)
legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings ,
which provides that a taxable person, to whom a supply of
goods or services has been made and who knew, or had
reasonable grounds to suspect, that some or all of the value
added tax payable in respect of that supply, or of any previous
or subsequent supply, would go unpaid, may be made jointly
and severally liable, with the person who is liable, for payment
of that tax. Such legislation must, however, comply with the
general principles of law which form part of the Community
legal order and which include, in particular, the principles of
legal certainty and proportionality.
2. Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive [...], as amended by Directives
2000/65 and 2001/115, is to be interpreted as not allowing
a Member State to enact either legislation, such as that in
1)
issue in the main proceedings , which provides that a taxable
person, to whom a supply of goods or services has been made
and who knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that
some or all of the value added tax payable in respect of that
supply, or of any previous or subsequent supply, would go
unpaid, may be made jointly and severally liable, with the
person who is liable, for payment of that tax, or legislation
which provides that a taxable person may be required to
provide security for the payment of that tax which is or could
become payable by the taxable person to whom he supplies
those goods or services or by whom they are supplied to him.
By contrast, that provision does not preclude a national measure
which imposes on any person who is, pursuant to a
national measure adopted on the basis of Article 21(3) of the
Sixth Directive [...], jointly and severally liable for payment of
value added tax, a requirement to provide security for the
payment of that tax which is due.
[2006] ECR I-not yet officially published
1)
The national measures provided that a taxable person other than the
person who is liable could be made jointly and severally liable to pay
the VAT with the latter person if, at the time of the supply to him, the
former knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that some or all of
the VAT payable in respect of that supply, or of any previous or subsequent
supply of those goods, would go unpaid. A person was presumed
to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that such was the case if the
price payable by that person was less than the lowest price that might
reasonably be expected to be payable for those goods on the market,
or was less than the price payable on any previous supply of those
goods. That presumption was rebuttable on proof that the low price
payable for the goods was attributable to circumstances unconnected
with failure to pay VAT.
Case C-98/05
1 June 2006
De Danske Bilimportører – Skatteministeriet
In the context of a contract of sale providing that, in accordance
with the buyer's intended use of the vehicle, the dealer will
supply it registered and for a price which includes the registration
duty on new motor vehicles he paid before supplying the vehicle,
that duty, for which the occurrence triggering liability is not the
supply of the vehicle but its first registration in national territory,
is not covered by the concept of taxes, duties, levies and charges
within the meaning of Article 11(A)(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive
[…]. Such a duty corresponds to an amount received by the
taxable person from the purchaser of the vehicle as repayment
for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the
latter within the meaning of Article 11(A)(3)(c).
[Unofficial translation]
[2006] ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C-233/05
1 June 2006
VOF Dressuurstal Jespers – Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor
Breda van de rijksbelastingdienst
1. Article 5(5)(a) of the Sixth Directive […], as amended by
Council Directive 94/76/EC […], must be interpreted as meaning
that there is no supply under a contract to make up work
when a horse is trained to make it suitable for use as a riding
horse or trained so as to make it capable of participating in
(dressage) competitions and that a horse, in such circumstances,
cannot be regarded as being a good produced.
2. Whether or not VAT is to be charged on amounts collected
periodically as payment for the provision of services comprising
the training of horses is to be determined according to the
Judgments of the Court of Justice – 36
© 2006 IBFD
conditions laid down in Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive.
[2006] ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C-430/04
8 June 2006
Feuerbestattungsverein Halle eV – Finanzamt Eisleben
Joined party: Lutherstadt Eisleben
A private person who is in competition with a body governed by
public law and alleges that that body is, in respect of the activities
in which it engages as a public authority, treated as a non-taxable
person for VAT purposes or undertaxed is entitled to
rely, before the national court, on the second subparagraph of
Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive [...] in proceedings, such as the
main proceedings, between a private person and the national tax
authorities.
[2006] ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C-106/05
8 June 2006
L.u.P. GmbH – Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte
Article 13(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive [...] is to be interpreted
as meaning that medical tests which have as their purpose the
observation and examination of patients for prophylactic purposes,
carried out, like those at issue in the main proceedings,
by a laboratory governed by private law outside a centre for
treatment on prescription from general practitioners, may come
within the exemption provided for by that provision as medical
care provided by another duly recognised establishment of a
similar nature within the meaning of that provision.
Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (2)(a) of that Directive does not preclude
national legislation which makes the exemption of such medical
tests subject to conditions which, first, do not apply to the exemption
of care provided by the general practitioners who prescribed
them and, second, are different from those applicable to
closely related activities to medical care within the meaning of
the first-mentioned provision.
Article 13(A)(1)(b) of the same Directive precludes national
legislation which makes the exemption of medical tests carried
out by a laboratory governed by private law outside a centre for
treatment subject to the condition that they be carried out under
medical supervision. However, that provision permits such legislation
to make the exemption of those tests subject to the condition
that at least 40% of those services must be intended for
persons insured by a social security authority.
[2006] ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C-494/04
15 June 2006
Heintz van Landewyck SARL – Staatssecretaris van Financiën
1. Neither Directive 92/12/EEC [...] nor the principle of proportionality
preclude Member States from adopting legislation
which does not provide for reimbursement of the amount of
excise duty paid, where the excise stamps disappeared before
having been affixed to the tobacco products, if that disappearance
is not attributable to force majeure or to an accident
and if it is not established that the stamps have been
destroyed or rendered permanently unusable, which thereby
places the financial responsibility for the loss of tax stamps on
the purchaser.
2. Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive [...] must be interpreted as
meaning that failure to observe the period for notification
does not constitute a material procedural defect capable of
rendering inapplicable a derogating measure which was notified
late.
3. Article 27(1) and (5) of the Sixth Directive [...] must be interpreted
as meaning that a derogating scheme for collecting
VAT by means of tax stamps, such as that established by
Article 28 of the Law on turnover tax of 28 June 1968 (Wet
op de omzetbelasting), is compatible with the requirements
laid down by the provisions of the directive and does not
exceed what is necessary for the simplification of the procedure
for charging the tax.
4. The absence of an obligation to reimburse amounts paid for
the purchase of excise stamps which correspond to VAT,
where those stamps disappeared before having been affixed
to the tobacco products, if that disappearance is not attribut-