ECJ Value added tax – Derogation under Article 28 of Directive 77/388 – Principle of neutrality Principle of equal treatment Right to obtain a refund of the tax in the event of incorrect interpretation of domestic provisions by the tax authorities Unjust enrichment.
Advocate General Kokott
C-309/06, [2007] EUECJ C-309/06 – O
Bailii
European
Citing:
At CA – Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No 5); Commissioners of Customs and Excise v University of Sussex CA 21-Oct-2003
The company sought to reclaim overpaid VAT.
Held: If the UK government had failed properly to implement the directive, then a person affected had the right to claim the benefit of direct enforceability. However, the directive itself was . .
Decision to refer – 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 . .
Reference – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 12-Jul-2006
Question referred to ECJ. Five questions were referred. . .
Cited by:
Advocate General’s Opinion – Marks and Spencer v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 10-Apr-2008
(Third Chamber of the Court of Justice) Taxation Sixth VAT Directive Exemption with refund of tax paid at the preceding stage Erroneous taxation at the standard rate Right to zero rate Entitlement to refund Direct effect General principles of . .
Advocate General’s opinion – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 4-Feb-2009
The taxpayer requested refund of VAT overpaid on chocolate covered cakes. The CandE resisted saying that the money had been substantially already paid by its customers. The case had been referred twice to the ECJ, who answered that the maintenance . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.262919
