In the Bulgarian case of Enel Maritsa Iztok 3AD v Direktor Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto NAP (ECJ Case C-107/10) the ECJ held that Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC precluded ‘national legislation which provides with retrospective effect for the extension of the period within which excess value added tax is to be refunded in so far as that legislation deprives the taxable person of the right enjoyed before the entry into force of the legislation to obtain default interest on the sum to be refunded’.
It also precluded ‘national legislation under which the normal period for refunding excess valued added tax at the expiry of which default interest is payable on the sum to be refunded is extended where a tax investigation is instigated the effect of the extension being that such interest is payable only...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In the Bulgarian case of Enel Maritsa Iztok 3AD v Direktor Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto NAP (ECJ Case C-107/10) the ECJ held that Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC precluded ‘national legislation which provides with retrospective effect for the extension of the period within which excess value added tax is to be refunded in so far as that legislation deprives the taxable person of the right enjoyed before the entry into force of the legislation to obtain default interest on the sum to be refunded’.
It also precluded ‘national legislation under which the normal period for refunding excess valued added tax at the expiry of which default interest is payable on the sum to be refunded is extended where a tax investigation is instigated the effect of the extension being that such interest is payable only...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
