Supreme Administrative Court refuses to issue a resolution in a VAT refund case

On 16 June 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) declined to adopt a resolution in a case of significant importance to the practice of VAT refunds. The central legal issue concerned whether administrative courts, when reviewing an order to extend the deadline for a VAT refund, may also examine earlier, non-appealed orders issued in the same matter.

Extension of the VAT refund deadline – rights and practice of tax authorities

Tax offices are empowered to issue orders extending the deadline for VAT refunds if they deem it necessary to conduct additional verification of the legitimacy of the refund. Problems arise when such extension orders are issued repeatedly and systematically, without substantive justification or indication of specific actions the tax authority intends to undertake.

A taxpayer may challenge such a decision by lodging a complaint with the Director of the Revenue Administration Chamber, and if the decision is upheld, subsequently file a complaint with the Voivodeship Administrative Court (WSA). In practice, however, taxpayers often refrain from appealing each successive extension, hoping for a swift resolution of the case.

Factual background – eleven extensions and a single complaint

In the case at hand, the taxpayer received eleven successive orders extending the VAT refund deadline. Objections were lodged against some of them, but the Director of the Revenue Administration Chamber upheld all of them. The taxpayer did not appeal any of these orders to the administrative court – until the eleventh extension, which was brought before the WSA.

In its judgment of 15 March 2021 (Case No. III SA/Wa 2253/20), the WSA overturned the latest order of the second-instance tax authority, holding that the authority had failed to demonstrate any new circumstances justifying a further extension. However, the court held that its review was limited solely to the contested order, and that earlier orders were beyond the scope of judicial examination.

Both parties subsequently filed cassation complaints with the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA).

The Dispute Before the Supreme Administrative Court and diffrences in the case law of administrative courts

The NSA, recognising significant discrepancies in judicial interpretations, referred the legal question to full court of seven judges (order of 5 March 2025, Case No. I FSK 1837/21). The central issue was whether an administrative court, when reviewing a single order extending the VAT refund deadline, may also evaluate prior, unchallenged orders concerning the same period.

The NSA noted that two opposing lines of case law, have developed regarding the scope of judicial review of such extension orders:

• According to the first line of case law, administrative courts are authorised to review previously issued orders. The continuity of the authority’s actions is deemed essential – if even one of the previous orders was improperly served and did not produce legal effects, then no subsequent orders produce legal effects either.
• The second line of case law views each extension order as a separate administrative act, based on a distinct factual background, thereby precluding judicial review of prior, unchallenged orders within the context of a single administrative court case (and this lane was adopted by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in this case).

The case also attracted the attention of the Ombudsman for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, who emphasised the need to protect taxpayers as the weaker party in administrative proceedings and invoked the constitutional principle of trust in public authorities.

Supreme Administrative Court refuses to issue a resolution

After examining the legal issue, the full court of the Supreme Administrative Court refused to adopt a resolution in its decision of 16 June 2025 (ref. no. I FPS 2/25). In its oral justification, it indicated that the conditions for adopting the resolution had not been met – the legal issue was not directly related to the allegations in the cassation appeals, which focused on the findings of fact.

What next? Implications for taxpayers and tax authorities

The practice of extending VAT refund deadlines continues to pose a significant practical challenge.

The absence of a resolution from the NSA maintains the prevailing state of legal uncertainty. The two conflicting lines of case law remain valid and are applied by different administrative courts.

For taxpayers, this means a lack of assurance that the court will examine the entire sequence of extensions, even if they were procedurally flawed. Consequently, upon receipt of any order extending the VAT refund deadline, it is advisable to consider filing an objection, followed by an administrative court complaint, especially in cases involving successive orders in the same matter.

For tax authorities, this ruling underscores that extension orders cannot be issued automatically. Each case requires individual assessment, and orders should only be issued in justified situations. Otherwise, tax authorities risk having their orders overturned, which entails the obligation to pay interest if the VAT refund ultimately proves to be justified.