Republic of the Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon City Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

DECISION

In the case at bar the issue which is presented for our consideration is whether or not petitioner's claim for a tax credit in the amount of P2,326,479.00 representing the balance of its VAT input taxes for the period March 1, 1993 to June 30, 1 993, which was allegedly disallowed by the respondent due to non- camp I i ance of invoicing requirements, be granted or denied.

Petitioner is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in the busine.ss of designing, developing, manufacturing and exporting a6vanced and large-scale integrated circuit components, commonly known· as "VLSI" components or "IC's", and is a registered value-added tax entity, holding' VAT Registration Certificate No.

32A-3- 002649.

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5142 - 2 - For the period covering March 1, 1993 to June 30, 1993, petitioner a I I eged I y generated and recorded zero- rated export sales in the amount of P457,901,160.34, the consideration of which were allegedly paid for in acceptable foreign currency, inwardly remitted to .the Phi I i pp i nes and accounted for in accordance with the regulations of the Central Bank of the Philippines.

During the same period, petitioner paid VAT input taxes on its a I I eged domestic purchases of taxab I e goods and services in the amount of P7,878,360.37, as well as on its a I I eged importation of goods amounting to P1 ,399,564.25, or a total of P9,277,924.62.

Of the total amount of P9,277,924.62 VAT input taxes allegedly paid by petitioner, P9,268,200.02 have not been applied against its output tax I iabi I ity. On October respondent, thru 27, 1993, petitioner f i I ed the One-Stop-Shop Inter-Agency with Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance, an application for the issuance of Tax Credit Certificate in the amount of P9,035,630.98.

On May 4, 1994, respondent issued to the petitioner a tax credit but only to the amount of P6,709,151.98.

The said Tax Credit Certificate No.

SN 002654

in the abovementioned amount was received by the petitioner only on August 1, 1994.

Petitioner thereby concluded that the

DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE NO. 5 142 - 3 - balance of P2, 326, 479.00 was in effect denied by the respondent.

Hence, on August 30, 1994, petitioner filed with the Court this instant petition for review. As ear I i er adverted to at the outset, the issue to be resolved by the Court is whether or not petitioner's claim for tax credit in the amount of P2, 326, 479.00 representing the balance of its VAT input taxes for the period March 1, 1993 to June 30, 1993, which was allegedly disallowed by the respondent due to non- comp I i ance of denied.

invoicing requirements, be granted or Petitioner presents the proposition as reason for this petition for review that since it is a VAT- registered entity and its sales amounting to P457, 90 1, 160.34 for the period March 1, 1993 to June 30, 1993 were direct export sales which were paid for in acceptable foreign currency inwardly remitted to the Phi I ippines in accordance with the regulations of the Centra I Bank of the Phi I i pp i nes, it fo I I ows that these export sales are not subject to ten percent ( 10%) value- added tax but zero-percent (0%), pursuant to Section 100(a)(1) of the Tax Code and Section 8(b)( 1) of Revenue Regulations No. 5-87, which provides:

DECISION -

' C.T.A.

CASE NO.

5142 - 4 -

SECT 1 ON

100.

Va I ue-added tax on sa I e of goods.

(a) Rate and base :f tax.

There sha 1 1 be I ev i ed, assessed and co I I ected on every sale, barter or exchange of goods, a value-added tax equivalent to 10% of the gross sel I ing price or gross value in money of the goods so I d, bartered or exchanged, such tax to be paid by the seller or transferor:

Provided, that the following sales by VAT-registered persons shal I be subject to 0%: (1) Export sales.

SECTION 8.

Zero-rating.

(a) X X X (b) Zero-rated following sales by zero-rated:

sales of goods.

VAT-registered persons The are (1) Export sales made directly by a VAT registered person.

x x x

Petitioner pointed out that its VAT input taxes from March 1 ' 1993 to June 30, 1993 which totalled P9,277,924.62 were properly supported by sales invoices and/or official receipts and since its sales of P457, 901,160.34 for the same period qua I i fy as zero-rated export sales, it follows that its VAT input taxes are available as tax credit under Section 8(a) of Revenue Regulations No.

5-87, which states that "A zero-rated sale is a purposes.

taxable transaction for value-added tax A sale by a VAT-registered person of goods and/or services taxed at zero-rate shal not result in any output tax.

The input tax on this purchases of goods or services related to such zero-rated sale shal I be ( 1 : 9' tJ \. J .,

DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE NO.

5142 - 5 - available as tax credit or refundable in accordance with Section 16 of these Regulations."

Respondent, on the other hand, insists that the applicable provision of law are Sections 104(b) 106(a) of the Tax Code, to wit:

SECTION 104.

Tax Credits.

X X

X (b) Excess output or input tax.

If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess sha I I be paid by the VAT-registered person. If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters.

Any input tax attributable to the purchase of capital goods or to zero-rated sales by a VAT registered person may at his option be refunded or credited against other internal revenue taxes, subject to the provisions of Section 106.

SECTION 106.

Refunds or tax credits of input tax.

(a) Export Sales.

- An exporter who is a VAT-registered person may within two years from the date of exportation, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of the input tax attributable to the goods exported, to the extent that such input tax has not been app I i ed to output tax and upon presentation of proof that the foreign exchange proceeds has been accounted for in accordance with the regulations of the Central Bank of the Philippines.

XXX XXX XXX and Respondent claimed that the petitioner's right to claim tax credit or refund of the amount of P2,326,479.00 has already prescribed since ( l  ' i v '1 -·· it appears that the Tax DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO.

5142 - 6 - Credit Certificate No.

SN 002645 in the amount of P6,709,151.98 was dated May 4, 1994 and that the petition for review was filed only on August 30, 1994, obviously more than thirty (30) days from the date of the Tax Certificate, in violation of the jurisdictional requirements of Section 11 of Republic Act No.

which provides:

SECT I ON

11 .

Who may appea I;

effect of appeal.

Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ru I i ng of the Commissioner of I nterna I Revenue, the Co I I ector of Customs or any provincia I or city or Board of Assessment Appea Is may f i I e an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling.

X X X.

1 1 25' Respondent further argued that there is sti I I a need to file another claim for refund or tax credit before the Commissioner with regard to the disallowed input tax subject of the present case, before the Court acquires jurisdiction over the instant case in accordance with Section 230 of the Tax Code.

Lastly, respondent demurs and maintains that petitioner did not comply with the invoicing requirements required by the Tax Code, thus, be dismissed for lack of merit. the instant case should A close scrutiny of the aforecited provisions of law and regulation invoked by the petitioner and respondent DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5142 - 7 - yields no repugnance with each other.

A I I

the said provisions/regulations are clear and precise and do not show any ambiguity or obscurity that wi I lead this Court to interpret the same in a different manner.

A I I

of those provisions/regulation aforementioned app I i es directly to the instant case, thus, no contention shou I d be resorted as to what provisions of I aw w i I I app I y. We do not agree with the proposition of the respondent that petitioner's right to claim tax credit or refund has already prescribed and that there is sti I I a need to file another claim for refund or tax credit before the Commissioner with regard to the disallowed input tax subject of the present case before the Court may acquire jurisdiction over the instant case.

The petition for review {no. 4, thereof) alleged that the Tax Credit Certificate No.

SN 002654 amounting to P6,709,151.98 was received by the petitioner only on August 1, 1994.

This allegation was not contradicted by the respondent in her an9wer nor did she offer evidence that will tend to show that it was received on a much ear I i er date;

thus, since the petition was filed with this Court on August 30, 1994, the theory of the respondent is thereby negated.

Corollari ly, the disallowance by the respondent of the input tax subject of the present case is tantamount to its decision, thus, qd.

1.J ...;.

,.,.

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO.

5142 - 8 - appealable to this Court.

Again, the argument of the respondent is out of context. Records of the case clearly show that the total amount of input taxes that were disallowed by the respondent for reasons of non-campi iance with invoicing requirements was only P917,190.15 (Exh.

1-G), and not ?2,326,479.00 as claimed by the petitioner.

The app I i cation for issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of P1 ,399,364.25 claimed by the petitioner as its input taxes on importation of goods was granted by the respondent ( Exh.

2), but since this pertains to VAT on importations duly administered by the Bureau of Customs, respondent did not include the amount in the tax credit certification issued to petitioner.

The amount of P9,724.60 representing petitioner 's output tax on its sale of scraps was deducted from the petitioner's VAT input taxes (Exh.

1-H).

With respect to the input taxes paid by petitioner on its importations, it .is noteworthy to quote a portion of this Court's resolution in the case of Marine Colloids, Phi Is., Inc.

v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No.

dated August 22, 1996, to wit:

"By virtue arrangement/agreement of an between the internal Bureau of 5339, DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5142 - 9 - Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs,.

the latter agency is given the authority to issue the tax credit certificates when it comes to VAT paid on importations. It cannot now shy away from the task which it had agreed to do.

XXX XXX xxx."

Thus, there being an authority to issue a Tax Credit Certificate under RAMO No. 2-93 (Exh. 2), with regard to petitioner's VAT input taxes on its importation in the amount of P1,399,364.25, this Court wi I I not delve on the same but instead will tackle on the disallowed amount of VAT input taxes on domestic purchases in the tot a I amount of P917,190.15.

An examination of the evidence adduced by the petitioner as we I I as the BIR records, led this Court to agree with the findings of the respondent that indeed these d i sa I I owed input taxes on domestic purchases in the total amount of P917,190.15 .represent those invoices, the dates of which were not within the period in the application, and in isolated instances, the supp I i ers were not registered as VAT taxpayers.

The first findings were confirmed by the petitioner's external auditor, Punongbayan and Arau I I o, in its report to the petitioner dated March 20, 1995 <Exh.

A).

IN THE

LIGHT OF ALL THE

FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the refund/tax credit of the amount sought is hereby DENIED.

However, 84· DECISION - C.T.A.

CASE NO. 5142 - 10 - respondent is hereby ORDERED to fac iIi tate the reI ease from the Bureau of Customs of the Tax Credit Certificate in the amount of P1,399,364.25, representing petitioner's VAT input taxes on its importations, which was previously approved by the respondent Commissioner of Revenue.

WE CONCUR:

 Q,. ERNESTO D.

ACOSTA Presiding Judge NCIO Q. 1s( Associ ate Ji5!:

.

I L -J :RAMON 0.

DE V A I Associate Ju e CERTIFICATION Internal hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation with the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article

VI I I

of the Constitution.

 lQ, ERNESTO D.

ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals