CJEU confirms VAT deduction cannot be denied for late-received intra-Community invoices

On 12 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered a judgment on the conditions for exercising the right to deduct value added tax in cases involving late‑received invoices for intra‑Community acquisitions. In its ruling in Aptiv Services Hungary Kft. (C‑521/24), the CJEU held that national legislation and administrative practice may not deny a taxpayer’s VAT deduction right solely because the taxpayer exercised that right in the period when the necessary invoices were actually received, even if this occurs after the period in which the underlying transactions took place.

1. Case background

Aptiv Services Hungary Kft. (“Aptiv”) was audited for the period from 1 November 2020 to 31 December 2021. During the audit, the Hungarian tax authority found that Aptiv had deducted VAT in its 2021 returns on intra‑Community acquisitions performed between 2016 and 2018. Aptiv explained that its suppliers issued and transmitted the relevant invoices only in 2021; therefore, it had been impossible to exercise the right of deduction in the periods in which the transactions took place.

The tax authority rejected Aptiv’s position, arguing that it should have corrected the original VAT returns through self‑revision. However, by the time Aptiv received the invoices, the statutory deadline for self‑revision had already expired for part of the period, particularly 2016 and part of 2017. The authority also denied access to Hungary’s special VAT refund mechanism.

2. The question referred to the CJEU

Aptiv challenged the decision before the Győr Regional Court, arguing that it had fulfilled all material conditions for VAT deduction and that the delayed receipt of invoices, which lay outside its control, should not permanently deprive it of this right. Aptiv stressed its good‑faith conduct, the genuine nature of the transactions and the absence of any tax loss. The referring court expressed doubts regarding the compatibility of the Hungarian rules with EU law, noting in particular earlier CJEU judgments such as Zabrus Siret and A., which confirm that material compliance must take precedence over late fulfilment of purely formal requirements.

In light of this, the referring court asked the CJEU whether a Member State may definitively refuse a VAT deduction when the taxpayer claims it in the period in which delayed invoices were actually received, still within the limitation period but outside the period of the underlying transactions and when self‑revision is no longer possible.

3. Decision of the CJEU

The CJEU recalled that its task is to provide the interpretation of EU VAT law necessary to resolve the dispute. It observed that Aptiv received the invoices relating to the 2016–2018 acquisitions only in 2021, meaning that both the material and formal conditions for deduction were satisfied only in that year. Aptiv had acted in good faith, no fraud was identified and the limitation period had not expired.

Under the VAT Directive, the right to deduct arises when the tax becomes chargeable, but it can generally be exercised only once the taxpayer possesses the invoice. Member States may impose procedural rules on how the deduction is claimed, but such rules must not make the exercise of the right practically impossible or excessively difficult.

The CJEU found that, because Aptiv could not deduct VAT earlier in the absence of invoices and could no longer use self‑revision or other national mechanisms, the Hungarian rules effectively eliminated the company’s right of deduction. The CJEU reaffirmed that a Member State cannot refuse the deduction solely on the basis of delayed formal compliance where the tax authority has all information necessary to verify that the material conditions are met.

The Court concluded that it is contrary to EU law for national legislation or administrative practice to deny the right to deduct VAT on intra‑Community acquisitions solely because the taxpayer exercised the deduction in the tax period in which it actually received the invoices necessary to exercise that right, where that period is later than the period in which the acquisitions took place, provided that the taxpayer acted in good faith and within the statutory limitation period.

4. What does this mean for businesses

The CJEU’s judgment provides an important clarification for businesses engaged in intra‑Community trade by confirming that the right to deduct VAT cannot be denied solely because invoices are received after the period in which the underlying transactions occurred, provided that the taxpayer acts in good faith and remains within the statutory limitation period. This interpretation reduces the risk that delayed invoicing by suppliers will result in permanent VAT costs and strengthens the legal position of taxpayers who have met the material conditions for deduction but were unable to comply with certain formal requirements due to circumstances beyond their control. The decision also reinforces legal certainty in cross‑border supply chains and may provide grounds for re‑examining past assessments or ongoing disputes in which tax authorities relied exclusively on procedural shortcomings to refuse deduction.

In light of this development, businesses should consider reviewing historical VAT positions, ongoing audit findings and internal compliance processes to determine whether opportunities exist to recover previously denied VAT or to strengthen their defence in pending matters. The judgment underscores the importance of demonstrating substantive compliance and good‑faith behaviour, which may now carry greater weight in interactions with tax authorities.

The Wolf Theiss Tax Team is well positioned to assist companies in responding to this ruling. The team can provide comprehensive reviews of historical VAT periods and support businesses in ongoing audits, administrative procedures and litigation by deploying the CJEU’s reasoning to challenge tax authority decisions.