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

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

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 Following the audit, its VAT identification number was revoked.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

Braun gives ITR an exclusive insight into WTS Digital’s UK launch of its AI product, which can free up more than 1,500 hours per month by reducing routine tasks
Long tells ITR about her varied role, why curiosity is a key characteristic for the tax professional, and what she’d be doing if she wasn’t working in tax
The choice facing governments is not whether to adopt AI in taxation, but how to do so in a way that upholds the principles of tax fairness, writes Neil Kelley
As ITR’s client data reveals discontent with German tax advisers’ cost management, Grant Thornton’s local TP head insists it’s a two-way street
Uncertainty isn’t always a bad thing, but it’s easy to see how the Trump administration’s IRS commissioner merry-go-round may serve to undermine business confidence
The EU defended its ‘sovereign right’ to impose the tax in the face of US tariff threats; in other news, the US deputy Treasury secretary resigned after just five months
Ascoria’s chief revenue officer shares her career wisdom garnered from the disparate worlds of tax technology, electric cables, radio DJing and more
Businesses no longer have a choice when it comes to tax technology transformation. Pavlo Boyko of TMF Group says the question is simply: sink or swim?
The firm is hunting for a senior TP manager in its quest to build a full-service practice in Indonesia, A&M Tax’s Jakarta head Jaap Zwaan tells ITR
With a new government in place, the evolving tax landscape presents both opportunities and challenges for taxpayers
Gift this article