Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — SC Terracult SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5, ANAF Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara Serviciul de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor

(Case C-835/18) ¹

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Invoice correction — Tax invoiced incorrectly — Refund of tax paid but not due — Reverse charge mechanism for VAT — Transactions relating to a tax period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection — Fiscal neutrality — Principle of effectiveness — Proportionality)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Terracult SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5, ANAF Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara Serviciul de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system for value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2013/43/EU of 22 July 2013, and the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national administrative practice preventing a taxable person that has carried out transactions which subsequently proved to be covered by the reverse charge mechanism for value added tax (VAT) from correcting the invoices relating to those transactions and relying on them by correcting an earlier tax return or submitting a new tax return taking account of the correction thus made, with a view to obtaining a refund of the VAT improperly invoiced and paid by that taxable person, on the ground that the period in respect of which those transactions were carried out had already been the subject of a tax inspection at the end of which the competent tax authority had issued a tax assessment which, not having been contested by that taxable person, had become final.

____________

¹ OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.