The end of automatic VAT deregistrations? The CJEU draws the line

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The end of automatic VAT deregistrations? The CJEU draws the line

Sponsored by

logo.png
CJEU

Fernando Matesanz of Spanish VAT Services examines a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that curbs the automatic deregistration of VAT numbers, reinforcing the need for individualised assessments and proportionality in tax enforcement

The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-164/24 (Cityland EOOD), delivered on April 3 2025, is of notable significance as it challenges the often overly widespread practice of systematic cancellation of VAT numbers by tax administrations.

The judgment arose from a preliminary ruling procedure initiated in the context of a dispute between the Bulgarian company Cityland EOOD and the Bulgarian tax administration. The conflict centred on the decision by the Bulgarian authorities to remove the company from the VAT register due to alleged systematic breaches of its tax obligations. This measure was based on Bulgarian national legislation allowing deregistration from the VAT register for entities that have committed repeated violations.

Analysis of the Cityland case

Cityland, which operated in the construction sector, was subject to a tax inspection in 2022. Following the audit, its VAT identification number was revoked. The main reason was the non-payment of VAT for several tax periods. The company argued that these non-payments did not stem from fraudulent behaviour, but rather from legitimate commercial difficulties – especially due to a defaulting client that failed to pay the VAT stated in the invoices. Cityland also claimed that it later settled the principal amount of the tax debt, with only interest charges remaining.

The Bulgarian national court, tasked with resolving Cityland’s appeal, referred several preliminary questions to the CJEU. In essence, the court asked whether Bulgarian legislation allowing the exclusion of a taxable person from the VAT system without an individualised assessment of their conduct and the nature of the infractions is compatible with the principles of union law. The key legal concerns focused on articles 213 and 273 of the VAT Directive, along with the principles of proportionality and legal certainty.

The court recalled that the EU’s common VAT system relies on the proper identification of taxable persons through an individual number, which ensures sound tax administration and enables essential controls to prevent fraud. This identification not only certifies the fiscal status of the person but also ensures that the transactions they undertake are fiscally valid. Removing this identification number, in practice, severely hinders a company’s ability to operate economically.

Although member states retain a certain margin to adopt measures to ensure tax collection and prevent fraud, this discretion is not unlimited. Any measures taken must respect fundamental principles of union law, including proportionality. In this case, the court held that deregistering a taxpayer for formal infringements without assessing whether there was fraudulent intent or whether the situation was later remedied constitutes a disproportionate measure.

Moreover, automatic exclusion from the VAT register can have consequences extending beyond the tax sphere. Clients and business partners may be discouraged from engaging with a deregistered company due to uncertainty over their right to deduct input VAT. This could lead to the loss of contracts, serious reputational damage, or even the forced cessation of the company’s business activities – amounting to a de facto ban on economic activity.

The court also emphasised that imposing such a severe penalty without a specific evaluation of the taxpayer’s conduct goes beyond what is necessary to safeguard the integrity of the tax system. It demands that administrative authorities, in accordance with the principle of good administration, carry out a thorough assessment of all relevant factors before taking such serious decisions. They must consider:

  • The overall behaviour of the taxable person;

  • The impact of the violations;

  • Any subsequent remediation; and

  • Other relevant subjective circumstances.

When a company can be excluded from the VAT system due to minor or regularised infractions, without any assurance of legal stability, this introduces continuous uncertainty about its tax position and that of its business partners – contrary to the legal certainty required under EU law.

The principles of proportionality and legal certainty do not permit the removal of a taxpayer from the VAT register solely for formal breaches, without considering their nature or evaluating the taxpayer’s behaviour on a case-by-case basis. Any sanction of this nature must be proportionate, reasonable, and grounded in detailed analysis that distinguishes between merely formal breaches and those that pose a genuine risk to tax collection.

Implications of the judgment for tax administrations

Ultimately, this judgment sends a message to tax administrations: they cannot systematically and indiscriminately deregister VAT taxpayers without conducting an individualised assessment of each case. Merely identifying repeated or formal infringements is not enough to justify such a drastic measure; it is essential to analyse the taxpayer’s conduct, the severity of the breaches, and any subsequent remediation. Failing to do so would amount to disregarding core principles of EU law.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Countries that care about the fair taxation of tech multinationals and equitable global distribution of wealth should back the UN’s tax framework, writes economist Abdelmalek Riad
The cuts disproportionately affected staff in certain positions, the report also found; in other news, MHA announced the €24m acquisition of Baker Tilly South East Europe
The plan aims to improve the efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness of direct tax administration in India
Gift this article