Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 October 2023 – ‘SEM Remont’ EOOD v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-624/23, SEM Remont)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ‘SEM Remont’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

Is a practice on the part of the revenue office permitted pursuant to Articles 63, 167, 168(a), 178(a), 218, 219, 220, 226 and 228 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC ¹ on the common system of value added tax as regards the application of national provisions and in particular of Article 71(1) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Bulgarian Law on Value Added Tax, ‘the ZDDS’) in conjunction with Article 25(1) of the ZDDS in conjunction with Articles 102(4), 114, 116 and 117 of the ZDDS in conjunction with Articles 125 and 126 of the ZDDS, that practice being one in accordance with which the recipient of a service subject to VAT was refused the right of deduction both for the period in which the service was rendered and also for the period of its declaration in the tax return on the ground that no VAT was indicated on the invoice issued to the recipient by the service provider and, at a later date (during the tax audit of the service provider), a document was issued that does not meet the requirements regarding the content of invoices (a memorandum was drawn up in which its author was described as both the recipient and provider of the service according to the memorandum) and in which the invoice issued to the recipient of the service was declared and VAT was calculated on the basis of the taxable amount indicated therein, which VAT was paid, and the recipient of the service only afterwards claimed the right of deduction (‘right to claim a tax credit’ under the ZDDS) on the basis of that memorandum, and is the exercise of the right of deduction rendered practically impossible or excessively difficult for the taxable person as a result of such a practice?

If the first question is answered in the negative: At what point can the right of deduction be exercised, at the time when the invoice is issued without VAT being indicated therein or at the time when the memorandum is issued by the service provider?

Is a provision such as Article 102(4) of the ZDDS and a practice on the part of the national tax authority permitted under Article 203, in conjunction with Articles 178(a) and 176 of the VAT Directive and the principle of tax neutrality, whereby a provider of a service that is subject to VAT who has not submitted an application for registration under the ZDDS within the period prescribed by law from the time when he was required to register under the ZDDS is required only to pay VAT in respect of the services he provided in the period from the date on which the registration obligation arose until registration with the revenue office, without any provision being made for the service provider in respect of whom VAT liability has been established pursuant to Article 102(4) of the ZDDS to be able to issue corrected invoices (or another document) to the recipients of services so that they can exercise the right of deduction?

____________

¹ OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.