North America

CJEU Rules on Conditions for VAT Refund

Charles Riordan
January 25, 2021

This blog was last updated on June 26, 2021

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that Member States must accept, as formally submitted, VAT refund requests that contain invoice identifiers other than sequential invoice numbers.

In case C-346/19 (Judgment of 17 December 2020), an Austrian taxpayer’s VAT Refund application was rejected by Germany’s Federal Central Tax Office, on the grounds that the “invoice numbers” listed on the application form were reference numbers rather than sequential invoice numbers.

The Austrian taxpayer challenged the notice, but the tax office ruled that the reference numbers didn’t comply with legal requirements and that the taxpayer had therefore failed to formally submit a valid refund request within the statutory time period allowed.

The CJEU disagreed, holding that a refund application under these circumstances must be considered validly submitted. In the court’s view, the substantive requirements of the application were satisfied, given that the reference numbers provided by the taxpayer allowed the invoices to be identified.

The court thought it particularly relevant that the Federal Central Tax Office had the ability to request further information, including copies of the original invoices, if it felt that the information provided by the taxpayer was insufficient to grant the refund. Declaring the application invalid without making a request for further information was a disproportionate penalty for the failure to comply with a purely formal requirement.

Ensuring VAT neutrality across the EU

This is not the first time that the CJEU has scrutinized the German tax authorities’ refund practices. In C371/19 (Judgment of 18 November 2020), the court held that the German authorities had violated the principle of VAT neutrality by systematically refusing to request information missing from VAT refund applications, such as copies of invoices or import documents. Instead, the authorities would immediately reject the applications, just as in C-346/19.

The court noted that the principle of VAT neutrality requires that a refund must be granted when all substantive conditions for the refund are fulfilled and that applicants must be given every opportunity to provide information needed to support a substantive claim. This ensures a taxpayer’s right to a settlement of VAT already paid is protected to the greatest extent possible.

Although the CJEU’s ruling in both cases was favorable for taxpayers, the court emphasized both times that failure to comply with a formal requirement could still prove fatal to an application if not corrected.

In C346/19, for example, the court noted that the tax office could officially request sequential invoice numbers from the taxpayer and could reject the application if those numbers weren’t provided within a month of the request.

Businesses need to understand and comply with tax authority regulations, even if a requirement is formal rather than substantive.

Take Action

To keep up to date with the changing VAT compliance landscape, download Trends: Continuous Global VAT Compliance and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter to stay ahead of regulatory news and other updates.

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.

Author

Charles Riordan

Charles Riordan is a member of the Regulatory Analysis team at Sovos specializing in international taxation, with a focus on Value Added Tax systems in the European Union. Charles received his J.D. from Boston College Law School in 2013 and is an active member of the Massachusetts Bar.
Share this post

Supreme Court Peters v. Cohen
North America Unclaimed Property
August 5, 2025
Supreme Court Petition Challenges State Unclaimed Property Laws: Peters v. Cohen

This blog was last updated on August 5, 2025 Supreme Court Peters v. Cohen: Major Unclaimed Property Case By Freda Pepper, General Counsel, Unclaimed Property Sovos regulatory team is tracking the latest Supreme Court Peters v. Cohen, a landmark case that raises fundamental questions about how state unclaimed property laws handle dormant assets and the […]

NAUPA III file format
North America Unclaimed Property
August 5, 2025
NAUPA III File Format: What Compliance Teams Need to Know

This blog was last updated on August 5, 2025 The National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators (NAUPA) has approved a major update to their electronic reporting standards with the introduction of the NAUPA III file format. This significant advancement in unclaimed property reporting represents a modernization effort that aims to streamline the submission process while […]

See for yourself how the Sovos Compliance Cloud can meet your business' unique tax compliance challenges.
Book a Demo
© 2025 Sovos Compliance, LLC. All rights reserved.
Why Sovos?
Resources
About
Products
Indirect Tax Suite
Information Reporting and Withholding Suite
Specialty Products
Solutions
By Tax or Document Type
By Industry
By Team or Initiative
By Region