Enel Maritsa Iztok 3 AD v Direktor «Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto» NAP (C-107/10)

Judgment of 12 May 2011

law://eu/cjeu/2010/c-107-10/para_47@2026-11-13

47With regard, first, to such a combination of carrying forward and refunding excess VAT, it should be observed that neither the referring court nor any of the parties which submitted observations to the Court has — correctly — called into question the possibility available to a Member State of providing that excess VAT is to be reimbursed by being carried forward in the first instance and then refunded. Indeed, Article 183 of the VAT Directive cannot be interpreted as meaning that refunding and carrying forward are mutually exclusive. Otherwise, a Member State which had opted for carrying forward as the means of reimbursing excess VAT would be prevented, in breach of the principles referred to at paragraphs 29 to 33 above, from refunding that excess if, in the tax period during which it was carried forward, the amount of tax due is insufficient to enable the excess to be set off.

Enel Maritsa Iztok 3 AD v Direktor «Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto» NAP (C-107/10)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections