You ticked the refund option, 45 days went by, then 90, then the notice of tax inspection arrived. In the end, part of the VAT is refused: an “inactive” supplier, an “incomplete” invoice, “unsubstantiated” services. A refund is a right with its own procedure, and the refusal of deduction has limits that the Court in Luxembourg has drawn many times, often in cases coming from Romania.
The negative VAT balance of more than 5,000 lei is claimed as a refund through the VAT return, under Article 303 of the Tax Code, and is settled, as a rule, with a subsequent tax inspection, within 45 days, or with an anticipated inspection, within 90 days, in the cases set out in Article 169 of the Tax Procedure Code. A delay beyond the time limit gives rise to a right to interest.
The right of deduction, from which the negative balance arises, can be refused only for failing to meet the substantive conditions, when the goods or services were not acquired for taxable transactions or were not acquired at all, or when the tax authority proves, with objective evidence, that the taxable person knew or should have known that it was taking part in fraud. Irregularities on the supplier's side, missing formal particulars or even the absence of the invoice are not, on their own, grounds for refusal, under the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
A balance of up to and including 5,000 lei must be carried forward. Above the threshold, ticking the option in the D300 return turns the return into a refund claim, and the balance claimed is no longer carried forward. Returns filed after the legal deadline do not enter the procedure; their balance is carried into the following period.
Every return with the refund option goes through the tax authority's risk analysis, using the negative individual standard (standardul individual negativ, SIN) and the inspection indicators, to determine whether the refund is made with a subsequent or an anticipated inspection. This stage has its own short time limit, within the 45 days.
The rule is a refund with a subsequent inspection. The anticipated inspection applies to large and medium-sized taxpayers, to identified risk situations, to the first refund return after registration, to balances older than one year, and to the other cases under Article 169(2) and (3). Anyone falling into these cases waits for the inspection before the money.
45 days without an anticipated inspection, 90 with one, extendable as the law allows for additional documents or information from third parties. Beyond the time limit, the taxpayer is entitled to interest, on request, for the period of delay, a principle confirmed by the Court in the Rafinăria Steaua Română case.
The right of deduction is, in the architecture of VAT, the rule, and its refusal the exception. The Court of Justice has repeated, in dozens of cases, that the neutrality of the tax requires the taxable person to be relieved entirely of the burden of VAT on acquisitions intended for its taxable transactions, and that formal conditions cannot remove the right when the substantive conditions are met.
There are two substantive conditions: the person must be a taxable person, and the goods or services must be acquired from another taxable person, for transactions giving rise to a right of deduction. When these are met, missing particulars on the invoice, the supplier's failure to register, or even its being declared inactive do not, on their own, justify a refusal. In case C-664/16, Vădan, which originated in Romania, the Court went further: even the absence of invoices does not justify a refusal, if the person proves through objective evidence that it actually bore the tax for acquisitions used in its activity. The burden of proof remains on the taxpayer, however, and a mere estimate through an expert report does not replace it.
A refusal is legitimate in two situations. The first: the transaction did not take place, or did not take place as the invoice shows, and the tax authority proves it. The second: the taxable person knew, or, exercising the diligence of a prudent trader, should have known, that the transaction was involved in fraud committed by the supplier or by another trader in the chain. The burden of proof lies with the tax authority, which must establish the objective evidence, not presume it. The Court has expressly said that the authorities cannot ask the buyer to verify, in general, whether the supplier has fulfilled its tax obligations; they can require reasonable diligence in response to specific indications of fraud.
In case C-430/19, SC C.F., also from Romania, the Court added procedural safeguards: the taxpayer must have access to the material in the administrative file on which the refusal is based and the opportunity to challenge it, and a refusal cannot be based on mere suspicions about the reality of the transactions, in the absence of evidence. And in case C-81/17, Zabrus Siret, it limited the tax authority's ability to reject corrections and refund claims solely because the period had already been checked, where there was no bad faith.
You check the date the inactivity was declared against the date of the transaction, and what could have been known at that time. Checking the VAT number on the date of the invoice, the contract, proof of delivery and of payment, build good faith. Later inactivity is not attributable to you.
For services, particularly intra-group or consultancy services, the tax authority asks for proof that they were actually performed and were necessary. Reports, deliverables, correspondence, the supplier's presence, the result used in the business. The invoice and the contract are not enough; their absence is not decisive either.
Missing particulars can be added, and the invoice can be corrected. A refusal for formal defects, when the substance is proven, is contrary to the Court's case law. This should be raised expressly, citing the cases, in the appeal.
This is the only ground that can stand, if it is proven. The defence requires dismantling the objective evidence relied on, one item at a time, and demonstrating diligence: checks carried out, market prices, a genuine commercial relationship. This is where the case is won or lost, including on the criminal side that sometimes accompanies it.
For large balances, the acquisitions that generated them should be documented in advance: contracts, proof of delivery or performance, payments, checks on suppliers as at the date of the transaction. The return with the refund option triggers the risk analysis; the file must already exist.
45 days from filing, 90 with an anticipated inspection. Note the filing date, ask in writing for an update on progress once the time limit expires, and make the claim for interest for the delay. The tax authority's silence can be challenged.
Anticipated or subsequent, it is prepared like any other inspection: the documents for acquisitions, the explanations for services, the checks carried out on suppliers. The objections to the draft report are the first place to raise the Court's case law.
For each refused amount, the exact basis: lack of substance, a formal defect, or the imputation of knowledge of fraud. The defence differs radically between the three, and decisions often mix the grounds together.
Within 45 days of communication, expressly relying on the CJEU cases applicable to each ground of refusal, with the evidence of substance and the request for access to the administrative file. The appeal is a precondition for going to court.
In litigation, the refusal of deduction is the classic ground of EU law: a request to refer the matter to the Court of Justice, when the interpretation is not settled, is a real tool, not a gesture.
A refusal of deduction on the “knew or should have known” ground often comes with a criminal referral. The tax defence and the criminal defence are built together, on the same evidence, from the outset.
No. Irregularities on the supplier's side are not transferred to a buyer acting in good faith. The tax authority has to prove what you knew.
The legal time limit is 45 or 90 days. Beyond it, you claim interest and use the remedies against silence. Waiting alone does not generate interest.
The formal defects raised by the tax authority must be challenged expressly, citing the case law, otherwise they remain in the decision as “unchallenged” grounds.
A refusal based on “known” fraud is, quite often, the start of a criminal file. It should be treated as such from the outset.
Through the VAT return, Form 300, by ticking the refund option. A balance of up to and including 5,000 lei cannot be claimed and must be carried forward, under Article 303(7) of the Tax Code. Above the threshold, the return becomes a refund claim, and the balance claimed is no longer carried forward.
The legal time limit for settlement is 45 days from filing the return. If the tax authority decides on an anticipated tax inspection, the time limit is 90 days and can be extended under the Tax Procedure Code, for example when information from third parties or additional documents are needed.
The rule, under Article 169 of the Tax Procedure Code, is a refund with a subsequent tax inspection. The exceptions, with an anticipated inspection, concern large and medium-sized taxpayers, tax risk situations identified through the risk analysis, the first return with the refund option after VAT registration, and other cases expressly provided for, such as a balance older than one year.
Yes. The Tax Procedure Code provides for interest in the taxpayer's favour on amounts to be refunded or repaid that are not settled within the time limit, on request, and the Court of Justice of the European Union held, in case C-431/12, Rafinăria Steaua Română, that the principle of VAT neutrality requires a delayed refund to be accompanied by default interest.
Not for that alone. Under the settled case law of the Court of Justice, the deduction can be refused only if the tax authority proves, with objective evidence, that the taxable person knew or should have known that it was taking part in a transaction involved in fraud. Irregularities on the supplier's side are not automatically transferred to a buyer acting in good faith.
Not automatically. In case C-664/16, Vădan, the Court held that the deduction cannot be refused solely for the absence of invoices, if the taxable person can prove through other objective evidence that it actually bore VAT on goods or services used in its business. The burden of proof lies with the taxpayer, however, and an expert report that estimates, without documents, is not enough.
Informative material, updated on 18 September 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts.
If you have received a tax assessment decision (decizie de impunere) or are preparing to challenge it, the related analyses are grouped under tax litigation. For how such matters are handled, see tax disputes.
An initial conversation reads the decision ground by ground, establishes which case law applies to each and what evidence is missing, and sets the time limits in motion: the appeal, the interest, the remedy against silence.