Towa Industry, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

DECIS ION

C.T.A. CASE NO. 5552 2 On 1997, Petitioner filed an 21ppl icat ion for tax cred~t/re~und for t~e sa1C cuarter in t~e amount of P316,557.00 with the Tax Revenue Grouo of the One Stop Shop Inter Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Deoartment of Finance <Exh. D). Contending inaction the instant petition was consequently filed on Sept ember' to t; 0 l1 of the reglementary period.

l=<espondent, by way of Special and ~ .i. u Pet it ioner'' s claim t''e fund/tax credit is pending administ~ative investigation; e~-<empt:i.ons.

der·-ogation of l·'efund:-~ a1··e in As such, they n.':3.tu.r·e of t-·e g<::n-·d ed and to sovereign authority C 0 n <;; t 1'' l..t E! d :~ Y"j S t !·' .i C' t· .i s; S .i !TI .i I ' I I' .i E ·'3 1;:: .,:::, .;. T'1 S ·•:.· person or entity claiming the exemotion; tax in ~-- ;..._ ".., '·' ' !

~:.::- 3.

Taxes paid a nd collected a~e presumed to have been made in accordance with the and regulations; and laws 4.

It 1s i ncumbent upon the taxpayer to estab:ish its riqht to the refund and failu~e to sustain the burden is fatal to the claim for ,-·r·~' fund.

Petitioner·~ in i t s cla.im,., submitted the following documentary evidences, tc wit:

DECISION C.T. A. CASE

NO~ 5 552

3 2.)

b) CertifJcate of Registration lS~Jed tv +~e 80!;

c) VAT Registrat:on Certificate issued by the BIR; c:l) Appl1cat1on for Tax Credit/Refund Res pondent, on the other hand, was to the cresentation of his evidence due tc t~e failure of his counsel to a ppe a r for three con<~ecutive 5:1.) u in his memorandum, Respondent did not that Pet:tioner has a va~1d claim of creditable 1nput vqT nor the fact of t~e timely filing of its cla1m. ~ence, the sole issue to be resolved in th1s case is or~ not Petitioner has fully substant:tated i ts claim for refun d/tax credit in the amount of P3:1.S,557.00. of the evictence of Pet it i one t~, b ot h t est i m on 1 a l and doc u men ·tat~ y, t h i s Co :_w t holds agains~ the t~e·-/ea that Petitioner has not been able to p1·~ o v e the o·;.:- its cLOl.im.

Section :1.06 of the Tax Code provides: SEC.

106.

Refunds ot· tax credits ot= creditable input tax.

(a) Any VAT- r egistered person? whose sa1es are zero-rated o1·~ effecti vely zer·' o-r~ated, m.:~y, within two (c~) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, a pply for t h e issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5552 4 of rred1table 'np~t ta~ cue ~r p~ attributable to sucn sa~es, except transitional inp~t tax, to the exte~t that such inp~t tax has not bee~ applied acainst 3~tcut tax:

ratEd sales ~nde- Sect .on and (b) and Section 102(b) (1) and acceptable forei g n currenc y exchance accov'd<::lnC(:> t'te 'r"'et:!ul-::ttlons ~)entr-'<::tl. nq Pil.ipinas CBSPl: Provided, Y X X.

; \ <C:~), the Ot'OCeed:.

B<::\n 1:1 l~ o "(b) C',;.?pital Goods. A V0T-reglstered -f .. c ....

the S-:~.U-::\T'IC~E of '1 t .;;)}( c~edit certificate or refund of input taxes paid on capital good~ imported or locally pur•chased,, to the extent that su.rh inout taxes have not been applied aqainst cutout taxes.

The application may be made only within two (2) years after the close of the taxable ouarter when the importation or ~urchase was made.

(Underscoring supplied) ~ .Ln •··elation SectioP 15 Revenue F{egu.~.at ions 1\iD. a~enceJ by Reven~e Re;; .:.la:tio ..... s No. 3-88, requires that: X X X n ohotocoov of the curchase invoice or receipt evidencino the value a~ded tav paid shall be submitted to~et~er with the aQolication.

The original copy of the said invoice/receipt, however, shall be presented fo~ cancellation oricr to the issuaP~e o~ t~e Tax Credit Certificate or refund in addition.

the followinQ documents shalJ be attached whenever applicable:

i' Photocopy of export document showing the amou~t of exp0rt, arc tho date and destination of the goods exoorted.

With resoect to forei~n currenc~ denominated sale.

the cooy of the invoice or receiot evidencing +·rH' s,;\l(:-> o·; the qoor.'s, <:t~;

v~eJ:' as the n·;·(me of the person to whom the goods were delivered.

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5552 - 5 - ii’ Statement from the Cental Ban any of its accredited agent banks that the proce«ds af the sal in acceptable foreign currency has been inwardi, remitted and accounted for in accordance wi' aop icaocle banking regu’ ations. x xX x x x x x x In all case, the amount of refund or tax credit that may be granted shall be limited to the amount cf the value-added tax (VAT) paid directly and entirely attributable to the zero- rated transaction during the period covered by the application for credit or refund. (Emphasis sunplied) As mentioned earlier, Petitioner only submitted the following documents to support its case viz: (a) VAT return for the quarter involved; (ob) BOI Certificate of Registratton; (c) VAT Registration Certificate: and (a’ Application for Tax Credit/Refund. Moreover, Petitioner di not make any appearance for atl tre s creeding hearings after it formally offered its evidence, and it d.d rot even bother to file its memorandun.

Therefore, in the light of the documents 50 submitted and offered in evidence, Petitioner only proved that it filed its VAT return for the third quarter of i995: that it is a BOT-registered enterprise as well as a VAT-registe»ed taxmayea; and that it applied for a tax credit/refiind for the said quarter of 1995. Nothing else, Fetitioner therefore was not able to support its i!lement to the claim of creditable input VAT. ih niy the documents aforementioned on record, this Court a no way of determin toe kind of goeds an acous!

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 3552 amount of export sales it allegediy made quarter of 1995. The mandate that be entirely attributable to the JF equal importance and cructa "e@ invoices/receipts as well documents and confixmation purchase of services and Petitioner failed to submit.

the export documents, no rescecting Petit’oner’s claim.

of the invoices/receipts are not has no way of listed therein.

As already pointed out, refunded are input taxes Said for are directly attributable to the did not Fetitioner present any indeed the services it purchased, aforecited the input tax being claimec mist to seceipts to prove the fact importation Without said documents determination Mere listing or ascertain ng the correctness what during the third aw and reguiatians be sho to export saies of goods.

Fe itioner’s claim are as the import entry F of goods which and can be made schedule enough since this Court of the data 15 allowed to be goods or services which particular export sales. that evidence to prove as wel] as the goods it imported, are directly attributable to the export sales For the period involved. Clearly and iindubitably, Petitioner failed ts substantiate its claim.

Once again, it is worth partake the nature of tax exemptions and strictissimi Juris the taxing authority. (Resins, stressing that tax against the taxpayer Inc.

refunds are construed in of and in favor vs. Auditor General, DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. S552 L-17888, S25 SCRA 754, Getober 29, 1968; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ledesma, L-17509, 31 SCRA 95 Janitary 206, 2970 Insular Lueber Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Court of Tax Appeals GR. Na, l-S310057, May 29, 1981; Commissioner of Internal Revenue VS. Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation G. R. Nos. L~-83583-84, March 25, 1992)

WHEREFORE, in the view of all the foregoing, the instant Fetition for Review 7+ hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.

WE CONCUR: /

\ .

Ot AO eee ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presicing Judge oa S$ Associate Jus CERTIF TCAT ron I hereby certify that the above decision was reached after due consultation with the members of the Court f Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article B& of the Constitution.

Ome Gu ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judre