The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 3 June 2026 in Case T 198/25 (G Kft.) concerns a situation in which a taxable person incorrectly charged VAT on invoices and subsequently corrected those invoices by issuing corrected invoices without VAT. Some of the incorrect invoices were corrected by the taxpayer only after a tax audit had already been initiated for the tax period to which those invoices related. The taxable person did not challenge the tax audit findings regarding the VAT incorrectly charged on the invoices and later applied for a refund of the overpaid VAT on the basis of all corrected invoices. The national tax authorities rejected that request for VAT correction and refund, arguing that the incorrect invoices concerned related to a period that had already been covered by a tax audit, and the CJEU concluded that such an approach is not contrary to EU law because the taxpayer had enough time (prior to the tax audit, during the tax audit and during a period for an appeal) for a correction and refund of VAT and consequently that, from timing perspective, it was not impossible or excessively difficult for the taxpayer to exercise VAT payer’s right that arises from the EU law.

However, the factual background of the case shows that some of the invoices were corrected only after the tax audit had begun. This means that, at least with regard to those invoices corrected only after the tax audit had begun, the taxable person actually could not have exercised its right for VAT correction and refund during the period that was subject to the tax audit. The taxpayer pointed out that the corrections related to a period for which the statute of limitations had not yet expired, and that the taxpayer could not request a VAT refund (and therefore could not actually exercise that right) before the correction of invoices which stated incorrectly charged VAT. It is therefore questionable, from timing perspective, how a tax audit relating to a particular period can affect a right that could not have been exercised during that audited period but only later, and consequently, in that respect, the Court’s conclusion appears surprising.

This raises the question whether the CJEU sufficiently examined when the right for VAT correction and refund actually became exercisable and whether adequate weight was given to the distinction between the period in which the taxpayer’s right arose on one hand and the period in which that taxpayer’s right could actually be exercised on the other hand. Regardless of these uncertainties, or perhaps precisely because of these or similar uncertainties, one thing is clear – it is important for taxpayers to take relevant actions for VAT refund in a timely manner to avoid the risks associated with possible differing interpretations regarding the timeliness, which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.