ECJ The derogation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 11C(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 does not authorize a Member State which enacts provisions for the refund of VAT in the case of total or partial non-payment of the consideration to refuse that refund where the unpaid consideration is in kind, when it permits a refund where the consideration is expressed in money.
On the one hand, since such provisions alter the taxable amount in a manner which goes beyond what is strictly necessary in order to avoid the risk of tax evasion, they cannot be justified by the aim of preventing such a risk. On the other hand, those provisions lead to discrimination against transactions in which consideration is paid in kind as compared with those in which the consideration is expressed in money, by discouraging traders from entering into barter contracts, when the two situations, which are economically and commercially speaking identical, are treated in the same way by the Sixth Directive.
Citations:
C-330/95, [1997] EUECJ C-330/95, [1997] ECR I-3801
Links:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 28-Jul-2005
The claimant had sought repayment of overpaid VAT, and the respondent resisted arguing that this would be an unjust enrichment. A reference to the European Court was sought.
Held: It was not possible to say that the House’s opinion was acte . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161703