Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

DECISION

f. I MINDARO-GRULLA, !_.:

This is a Petition for Review1 filed by Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. as petitioner, against Commissioner of Internal Revenue as respondent, before the Court in Division, pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended2, as well as Rule 4, Section 3(a)(2), in relation to Rule 8, Section 4(a) of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA)3, as amended.

1 Docket, vol. I, pp. 5-16.

2 Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:

XXX

XXX

(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds or internal revenue taxes, fees of other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period for action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;

XXX

XXX

3 Rule 4, Sec. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. -The Court in Division shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following:

XXX

XXX

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

Petitioner seeks the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount of P39,514,045.36, allegedly representing its unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) on purchases of goods and services for the third (3rd) quarter of calendar year (CY) 2008 attributable to its zero-rated sales of generated power.

Petitioner Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, with principal office at Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur.4 It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a VAT taxpayer with Taxpayer's Identification No. 005-633-984-000.5 Petitioner was incorporated on December 2, 2005, the primary purpose of which is to "engage in the business of owning, developing, constructing, operating, repairing, and maintaining of hydroelectric power plant systems, renewable and indigenous power generation plants and other types of power generation and/or converting stations, and to act as holding company or joint venture partners or investors in the business of developing, operating, and/or owning power generation plants and/or converting stations".6

(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: Provided, that in case of disputed assessments, the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one hundred eighty day-period under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of allowing the taxpayer to appeal his case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the tax case; Provided, furthe~ that should the taxpayer opt to await the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the disputed assessments beyond the one hundred eighty day-period abovementioned, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision to the Court under Section 3(a), Rule 8 of these Rules;

XXX

XXX

Rule 8. Sec. 4. Where to appeal,· mode of appeal.-

(a) An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade & Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal.

XXX

XXX

4 Par. 2, Admitted Facts, Amended Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (Amended JSFI), Docket, vol. II, p. 1063.

5 Par. 9, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1064. 6 Par. 7, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1064. .<

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

Respondent, on the other hand, is the duly appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, empowered to perform the duties of said office including, among others, the power to decide, approve, and grant refunds or tax credits of erroneously or excessively paid taxes, as provided by law. He holds office at the BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. Petitioner owns a hydroelectric power plant ( 42 MW Sibulan Hydro Electric Power Plant).

It consists of two (2) independent hydroelectric projects namely, Upstream Plant A with installed capacity of about 16.5 MW and Downstream Plant B with installed capacity of about 26 MW; which has been duly certified by the Department of Energy (DOE) as consistent with the Power Development Plan (PDP) of the government.7 On March 7, 2007, petitioner entered into a Power Supply Agreement (PSA)8 with Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. (DLPCI). Under the said Agreement, petitioner will sell its generated power through its hydroelectric power plants to DLPCI. On October 20, 2008, petitioner filed with the Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 115 of the BIR its Original Quarterly VAT Return9 for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008. Subsequently, petitioner filed its Amended Quarterly VAT Return10 for the same quarter on June 23, 2010, reflecting the following relevant details:

VATable Sales

p

Zero-Rated Sales

Total

p Output tax due p Less: Allowable input tax - - - - Input tax carried over from previous period p 75,195,300.69 Domestic purchase of goods other than capital goods p 4,414,111.47 Domestic purchase of services P35,099,933.89 39,514,045.36 7 Par. 11, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1065; Exhibits "P-2-1" to "P-2-2", Docket, vol. III, pp. 1118-1119.

8 Exhibit "P-1", Docket, vol. II, pp. 828-934. 9 Par. 12, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1065; Exhibit "P-7", Docket, vol. II, p. 948.

10Par. 13, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1065; Exhibit "P-8", Docket, vol. II, p. 954.

<

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

Total allowable input tax VAT payable (overpayment) p 114,709,346.05 P(114,709,346.05) On June 25, 2010, petitioner filed with BIR ROO No. 115 a written application for the refund or issuance of tax credit certificate (TCC) and an Application for Tax Credits/Refund (BIR Form No. 1914) for its unutilized input VAT for the second to fourth quarters of CY 2008 in the total amount of P107,888,643.12. The said application includes the unutilized input VAT paid and incurred by petitioner during the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 in the total amount of P39,514,045.36.11 However, respondent failed to decide on petitioner's administrative claim for refund of its excess and unutilized input VAT for the third quarter of CY 2008.12 Hence, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on September 30, 2010. On October 21, 2010, respondent filed an Answer13 and interposed the following special and affirmative defenses: "5. Taxes paid and collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) are presumed to have been made in accordance with law, rules and regulations and the burden to prove otherwise is upon petitioner.

6. Petitioner's alleged claim for refund is subject to administrative routinary investigation/examination by the Bureau.

7. Petitioner must prove it is entitled to a claim for refund under the strictest terms.

8. Petitioner must prove that it paid the alleged VAT input taxes for the period in question.

9. Petitioner must prove that the same alleged VAT input taxes was not utilized against any output tax liability. 11 Par. 14, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1065. 12 Par. 15, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1065. 13 Docket, vol. I, pp. 175-183.

(

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

10. Petitioner must prove that the alleged VAT input taxes for the period in question are attributable to its alleged VAT zero-rated sales.

11. Petitioner must prove that the administrative and judicial claims were filed within the period prescribed by law.

12. Petitioner must prove that its sales are VAT zero- rated as contemplated under Section 112 (A) of the NIRC of 1997.

13. The claim for refund in the amount of Thirty Nine Million Five Hundred Fourteen Thousand Forty Five and 36/100 Pesos (P39,514,045.36) allegedly representing accumulated and unutilized VAT input taxes it paid for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 is not properly documented. To support its claim, it is indispensable for petitioner to prove the following: a) Registration requirements of a value-added taxpayer in compliance with Section 9.236.1 (a) of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005 and Section 236 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; b) Invoicing and accounting requirements for VAT- registered persons as well as the filing and payment of VAT pursuant to the provisions of Section 113 and 114 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Failure to comply with the invoicing requirements on the documents supporting the sale of goods and services will result in the disallowance of claim for input tax of the taxpayer claimant. (Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 42-2003);

c) Petitioner must prove that it has fully complied with the requirements of Section 9.236.1.a of RR No. 16-2005 and Revenue Memorandum Order No. 53-98, otherwise, there would be no sufficient compliance with regard to the filing of administrative claim for tax credit/refund which is a condition sine qua non prior to the filing of judicial claim;

<

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR d) In relation thereto, Section 112 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, requires submission of complete documents in support of the application for tax refund filed with respondent before the one hundred twenty (120) day period shall apply and before petitioner could avail of the judicial remedies provided by law. Ergo, petitioner's failure to submit proof of compliance with the aforesaid requirements warrants the dismissal of the instant Petition for Review.

Page 6 of 29

14. In the case entitled 'San Roque Power Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; the Supreme Court had the occasion to say:

'In order to claim a refund or tax credit under Section 112 (A), petitioner must comply with the following criteria:

1. The taxpayer is VAT-registered;

2. The tax-payer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;

3. The input taxes are due or paid;

4. The input taxes are not transitional input taxes;

5. The input taxes have not applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters;

6. The input taxes claimed are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;

7. For zero-rated sales under Section 106 (A) (2)

(1) and (2); 106 (B), and 108 (B) (1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations; < erA Case No. 8166 Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

DECISION

8. Where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and that the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume; and

9. The claim is filed within 2 years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made.'

Page 7 of 29

15. For a judicial claim for refund of input VAT to prosper, the petitioner must prove that there must be (a) zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; (b) that input taxes were incurred or paid; (c) that the input taxes are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; (d) that the input taxes were not applied against any output VAT liability; and (e) the claim for refund/tax credit must be filed within the two year prescriptive period. (EG & G Omni, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 5987, March 26, 2004)

16. Corollary thereto, Sec. 4.110.8 of RR 16-2005 explicitly provides:

'Input Taxes for tie importation of goods or the domestic purchases of goods, properties or services is made in the course of trade or business, whether such input taxes shall be credited against zero-rated sales, or subject to the 5°/o Final Withholding VAT must be substantiated and supported by the following documents and must be reported in the information returns required to be submitted to the Bureau:

(1) For the importation of goods - import entry or other equivalent document showing actual payment of

VAT on

imported goods; (2) For domestic purchases of goods and properties - invoice showing the information required under Sections 113 and 237 of the Tax Code.'

17. Likewise, for a judicial claim to prosper, the party must not only prove that it is a VAT-registered entity, it must substantiate the input VAT paid by purchase invoices or official receipts (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Mining < CfA Case No. 8166 Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

Corporation, 468 SCRA 571). Such that failure to comply with the requirements for a valid request for refund including the requirement for a valid sales invoice is fatal to the claim for refund. (EG & G Omni, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 5987, March 26, 2004)

18. In its Petition for Review, petitioner stated that it filed an Amended Quarterly VAT Return for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 on June 23, 2010. Moreover, petitioner alleged that it filed an administrative claim for tax credit/refund on its unutilized input VAT covering the same period on June 25, 2010.

19. The filing of the Petition for Review on September 30, 2010 was premature based on the pertinent provision of Section 112 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: (C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof.

In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. (Underscoring supplied)

20. Suffice it to say respondent was not given an opportunity to act on the matter. As clearly provided for in the abovementioned provision, respondent should have been given a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the filing of petitioner's application for refund or issuance of TCC and Application for Tax Credits/Refunds within which to resolve the administrative application for refund. Manifestly, it is only after the expiration of the aforesaid period that petitioner is given 30 days within which to elevate the same before the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals. Ergo, since petitioner prematurely filed ('

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR its judicial claim prior to the lapse of the period provided for in Section 112 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended the Honorable Court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the instant case.

21. To recapitulate, since petitioner prematurely filed the Petition for Review on September 30, 2010, the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant case.

22. The provision of law regarding prescriptive periods is jurisdictional, compliance with which is essential for this Honorable Court to exercise authority over the instant case. Such statutes or rules are construed as mandatory as they have been absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharger of business and are necessary incident to the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of official functions.

23. Furthermore, it is well-established in this jurisdiction that claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake of the nature of exemption from taxation and are therefore held against the claimant. Petitioner must present clear and convincing evidence to merit a tax refund. The taxpayer bears the burden of establishing the factual basis of its claim for refund.

24. Basic is the rule that tax refunds are regarded as tax exemptions that are in derogation of the sovereign authority and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption (Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 141973, June 28, 2005). The burden of proof is upon him who claims the exemption and he must be able to justify his claim by the clearest grant under Constitutional or statutory law and he cannot be permitted to rely upon vague implications. (BPI Leasing Corporation v. the Honorable Court of Appeals, eta!., G.R. No. 127624, November 18, 2003). The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and that he who would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted (Sea-Land Service vs. Court of Appeals, 357 SCRA 444).

25. All told, petitioner's claim for refund filed before the Honorable Court should be denied for lack of jurisdiction and/or lack of merit."

c

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

A Notice of Pre-Trial Conference was issued by the Court on October 22, 2010, setting the case for pre-trial conference on November 11, 2010.14 Accordingly, respondent's Pre-Trial Brief15 was filed on November 8, 2010; while petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief16 was filed on November 25, 2010.

On November 25, 2010, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues17• The Court, in a Resolution18 dated January 17, 2011, approved the parties' joint stipulations and terminated the pre-trial.

On March 9, 2011, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss19 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for failure of petitioner to file a judicial claim for refund within the period prescribed by law, in violation of Section 112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Respondent alleges that petitioner filed its judicial claim prematurely; hence, the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and should dismiss the petition. On April 5, 2011, petitioner filed its Comment/Opposition (Re: Respondent's Motion to Dismiss dated 4 March 2011)20, in compliance with the Court's Resolution21 dated March 11, 2011. The former Second Division22, in a Resolution23 dated April 12, 2011, dismissed petitioner's judicial claim for being prematurely filed. On April 29, 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration24 and on May 27, 2011, respondent filed his Comment Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 12 April2011)25• On 14 Docket, vol. I, p. 185.

15 Docket, vol. I, pp. 186-189.

16 Docket, vol. I, pp. 203-217.

17 Docket, vol. I, pp. 226-232.

18 Docket, vol. I, p. 234.

19 Docket, vol. I, pp. 265-271.

2o Docket, vol. I, pp. 300-319.

21 Docket, vol. I, p. 274.

22 Composed of Associate Justice Juan ito C. Castaneda, Jr., Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, and Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla. 23 Docket, vol. I, pp. 321-326.

24 Docket, vol. I, pp. 330-366.

25 Docket, vol. I, pp. 376-400.

~

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

June 14, 2011, the former Second Division issued a Resolution26 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. On July 18, 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Review27 with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Bane to assail the above Resolutions, docketed as CTA EB No. 798. On the other hand, respondent filed his Comment (Re: Petition for Review Resolution dated August 9, 2011)28 on September 5, 2011.

In compliance with the CTA En Bane Resolution29 dated October 3, 2011, respondent filed his Memorandum30 on November 15, 2011; while the Memorandum for Petitioner31 was filed on November 16, 2011. Hence, the case was submitted for decision. On December 6, 2012, the CTA En Bane rendered a Decision32 dismissing the Petition for Review for lack of merit and affirming the Resolutions dated April 12, 2011 and June 14, 2011 of the former Second Division.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration33 on January 24, 2013.

Respondent filed his Comment (Re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration)34 on March 11, 2013.

Meanwhile, on February 12, 2013, the Supreme Court promulgated the consolidated case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.

San Roque Power Corporation,

Taganito Mining

Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Phi/ex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (San Roque case )35, which reinforced the doctrine in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Aiehi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. (AiehiJ6 that the 120+ 30-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional, but recognized a period of exception to its applicability, i.e., the period from the issuance of BIR 26 Docket, vol. I, pp. 403-408.

27 Docket, vol. I, pp. 413-469.

2a Docket, vol. I, pp. 497-514.

29 Docket, vol. I, pp. 518-519.

30 Docket, vol. I, pp. 530-550.

31 Docket, vol. I, pp. 552-612.

32 Docket, vol. II, pp. 615-630.

33 Docket, vol. II, pp. 652-665.

34 Docket, vol. II, pp. 669-680.

35 G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, February 12, 2013. 36 G.R. No. 184823, October 6, 2010.

(" Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010 when the Aiehidoctrine was adopted.

On May 30, 2013, the CTA En Bane issued an Amended Decision37 in light of the San Roque case. The CTA En Bane ruled that even though petitioner filed its judicial claim for refund or tax credit of excess and unutilized input VAT before the lapse of the 120-day waiting period, still, petitioner's judicial claim was filed on September 30, 2010, or within the period of exception established by the San Roque case, thereby granting petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, reversing and setting aside the CTA En Bane's Decision dated December 6, 2012, and remanding CTA Case No. 8166 to the Court in Division for further proceedings.

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration ( Re: Decision Promulgated May 30, 2013)38 on June 20, 2013, praying that the CTA En Bane's Amended Decision dated May 30, 2013 be set aside and the Decision dated December 6, 2012 be reinstated; which was denied in the Resolution39 dated November 20, 2013. As a result, respondent filed a Petition40 with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 210271.

On February 17, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution41 denying the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment.

Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Resolution dated February 17, 2014)42, which the Supreme Court likewise denied with finality via Resolution43 dated June 11, 2014. Consequently, an Entry of Judgmenf:44 was issued by the Second Division of the Supreme Court proclaiming that the Resolution dated 37 Docket, vol. II, pp. 683-694.

3B Docket, vol. II, pp. 700-716.

39 Docket, vol. II, pp. 741-754.

40 Docket, vol. II, pp. 760-772.

41 Docket, vol. II, p. 777.

42 Docket, vol. II, pp. 778-791.

43 Docket, vol. II, p. 793.

44 Docket, vol. II, pp. 796 and 798.

tC

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

February 17, 2014 became final and executory and recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on August 14, 2014. In view of the foregoing, the case was remanded to the Court in Division for further proceedings.

On February 4, 2015, the Court issued a Resolution45 setting the presentation of petitioner's evidence on February 23, 2015. On February 18, 2015, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (i. To Cancel the Hearing on February 23, 2015; ii. For Leave to Re-open the Pre-Trial; and iii. To Defer the Presentation of Petitioner's Evidence)46, which was granted by the Court in a Resolution47 dated February 23, 2015. The case was set for pre-trial on April 6, 2015.48 On April 27, 2015, the parties submitted their Amended Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues49• Then on May 5, 2015, the Court approved the same and terminated the pre-trial. so On May 6, 2015, upon motion of petitioner, this Court commissioned Emmanuel Y. Mendoza, partner of Mendoza Querido & Co., as Independent Certified Public Accountant {CPA) for the case. 51 During trial, petitioner presented Ms. Arlene Galace- petitioner's former General Accountant52 and Emmanuel Y. Mendoza- the Court- commissioned Independent CPA 53• On July 15, 2015, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence (With Motion for Leave to Correct Marking of Exhibits)54, submitting Exhibits "P-1" "P-2-1" "P-2-2" "P-3" "P-5" "P-6" "P-7" "P-8" "P-9"

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

"P-10" "P-11" "P-12" "P-13" "P-14" "P-15" "P-15-a" "P-18" to "P- '

I

I

I

I

I

I

45 Docket, val. II, pp. 801-803.

46 Docket, val. II, pp. 804-808.

47 Minutes of Hearing dated February 23, 2015, Docket, val. II, p. 809. 48 Ibid.

49 Docket, val. II, pp. 1063-1076.

50 Pre-Trial Order, Docket, val. II, pp. 1078-1081. 51 Minutes of Hearing dated May 6, 2015, Docket, val. II, p. 1083. 52 Minutes of Hearing dated May 6, 2015, Docket, val. II, p. 1083; Exhibit "P-15", Docket, val. II, pp. 1013-1026.

53 Minutes of Hearing dated June 15, 2015, Docket, val. III, p. 1098; Exhibit "262", Docket, val. Ill, pp. 1088-1097.

54 Docket, val. III, pp. 1105-1117.

< CfA Case No. 8166 Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

206", "P-207", "P-208" and "P-209", "P-210" to "P-213", "P-214" to "P- 217", "P-218" to "P-221", "P-222" to "P-225", "P-226" to "P-229", "P- 230" to "P-233", "P-234", "P-235", "P-236" and "P-237", "P-238", "P- 239", "P-240" to "P-259", "P-260", "P-261", "P-262", and "P-262-a"; which were admitted by this Court in the Resolutions55 dated August 27, 2015 and November 26, 2015.

Petitioner's documentary exhibits are as follows:

Exhibit

Description:

P-1

Power Supply Agreement (PSA) executed between Petitioner and Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. (DLPCI) dated March 7, 2007

P-2-1

Certificate of Compliance No. 10-05-GN-16816 issued by the Energy Regulatory Commission

(ERC) for Petitioner's Hydroelectric Power

Plant Bon May 24 2010

P-2-2

Certificate of Compliance No. 10-08-GN-56- 16881 issued by the ERC for Petitioner's Hydroelectric Power Plant A on August 9, 2010

P-3

2nd Indorsement issued by the Chief of the

Contracts Division -

Legal Services of the

Department of Energy (DOE) addressed to the

Assistant

Director

for

Corporate

and

Partnership Registration of the SEC

P-5

Memorandum

of

Agreement

between Petitioner and DOE dated July 14, 2008

P-6

Petitioner's letter filed with the ERC on December 10, 2007 requesting the issuance of

Certificate of Compliance

P-7

Petitioner's Original Quarterly VAT Return for

the 3rd quarter of calendar year (CY) 2008

P-8

Petitioner's Amended Quarterly VAT Return for

the 3rd quarter of CY 2008

P-9

Petitioner's Original Quarterly VAT Return for

the 4th Quarter of CY 2008

P-10

Petitioner's Original Quarterly VAT Return for

the 1st quarter of CY 2009

P-11

Petitioner's Original Quarterly VAT Return for

the 2nd quarter of CY 2009

P-12

Petitioner's Original Quarterly VAT Return for

the 3rd quarter of CY 2009

P-13

Petitioner's Original Quarterly VAT Return for

the 4th quarter of CY 2009

P-14

Petitioner's Original Quarterly VAT Return for

the 1st quarter of CY 2010 55 Docket, vol. III, pp. 1138-1139 and 1158-1159. 4'

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

P-15

P-15-a

P-18 to P-206

P-207

P-208 and

P-209

P-210 to P-213

P-214 to P-217

P-218 to P-221

P-222 to P-225

P-226 to P-229

P-230 to P-233

P-234

P-235

P-236 and

P-237

P-238

P-239

P-240 to P-259

P-260

P-261

P-262

P-262-a

Page 15 of 29

Sworn Statement of Ms. Arlene Galace to Questions Propounded by Atty. Mary Grace Aileen V. Estoy dated March 30, 2015 Signature of Ms. Arlene Galace in her Sworn Statement dated March 30, 2015 Supporting documents for input VAT for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 Company's schedule of input VAT for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 Original quarterly VAT returns for the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2008 Original Quarterly VAT Returns for the pt to 4th quarters of CY 2009 Amended Quarterly VAT Returns for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2010 Amended Quarterly VAT Returns for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2011 Amended Quarterly VAT Returns for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2012 Original Quarterly VAT Returns for the pt to 4th quarters of CY 2013 Original Quarterly VAT Returns for the 1st and 2nd quarters of CY 2014 and Amended Quarterly VAT Returns for the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2014 Original Quarterly VAT Return for the 1st

Quarter of CY 2015

Certificate of Endorsement issued by the DOE

Certificates of Compliance of Plants A and B

issued by the ERC PSA between Petitioner and DLPCI dated March 7, 2007 Schedule of Petitioner's zero-rated sales for the 15tto 4th quarters of CY 2010 Supporting documents for Petitioner's zero- rated sales for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2010

Petitioner's Audited Financial Statements for

CY 2010

Report of the Independent Certified Public

Accountant (ICPA) on the results of the procedure performed relative to Petitioner's claim for refund of its unutilized input tax covering the 3rd quarter of CY 2008

Sworn

Statement of Mr.

Emmanuel

Y.

Mendoza to Questions Propounded by Atty.

Mary Grace Aileen V. Estoy dated June 10, 2015 Signature of Mr. Mendoza in his Sworn Statement dated June 10, 2015 <

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

On the other hand, during the hearing held on June 15, 2015, counsel for respondent manifested that he has no witness to present. Upon motion of the parties, the Court granted both parties thirty (30) days from receipt of the Court's resolution on petitioner's formal offer of evidence to file their respective memoranda.56 On February 12, 2016, this case was submitted for decision, considering petitioner's Memorandum57 filed through registered mail on January 27, 2016 and received by the Court on February 5, 2016 and respondent's Manifestation58 filed on October 9, 2015, adopting the arguments raised in his Answer filed on October 21, 2010 as his Memorandum. 59 The parties submitted the following issues60 for this Court's resolution:

wit:

"17.1. Whether or not Petitioner's unutilized input VAT for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 amounting to Php39,514,045.36 is duly substantiated by documentary evidence in the form of invoices and official receipts;

17.2. Whether or not Petitioner's unutilized input VAT for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 amounting to Php39,514,045.36 was applied or credited against any output VAT of the Petitioner in the same quarter and subsequent taxable quarter or quarters; and 17.3. Whether or not the input VAT on Petitioner's domestic purchases of goods and services for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 is attributable to its zero-rated sales of generated power."

The foregoing issues can be summarized into one main issue, to 56 Minutes of Hearing dated June 15, 2015, Docket, vol. III, p. 1098. 57 Docket, vol. III, pp. 1174-1207.

58 Docket, vol. III, p. 1152.

59 Docket, vol. III, p. 1210.

60 Issues, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, pp. 1065-1066. < erA case No. 8166 Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

"Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of P39,514,045.36 as alleged excess and unutilized input VAT on domestic purchases of goods and services attributable to its zero-rated sales of generated power for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008."

Petitioner argues that it is entitled to a refund of its unutilized input taxes attributable to its zero-rated sales of generated power pursuant to Sections 108(8)(7), 110(8), and 112(A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

Section 112(A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, states: "SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax.- (A) Zero-Rated or Effectively Zero-Rated Sales. - Any

VAT-registered

person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero- rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b) and Section 108(8)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the 8angko Sentral ng Pilipinas (8SP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods of properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales: Provided, finally, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 108(8)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales.

XXX

XXX

XXX

(C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall ~

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals." Based on Section 112(A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in order to be entitled to a refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, the following requisites must be complied with:

1. the claimant must be a VAT-registered person;

2. there must be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;

3. input taxes were incurred or paid;

4. such input taxes are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;

5. said input taxes were not applied against any output VAT liability; and

6. the administrative and judicial claims for refund were filed within the prescribed period.

Sixth Requisite:

Petitioner's administrative and judicial claims were seasonably filed The Court shall first determine petitioner's compliance with the sixth requisite which pertains to the timeliness of the filing of petitioner's claim.

Section 112(A) is clear that for VAT-registered persons whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated, a claim for refund or credit of creditable input tax that is due or paid, and that is attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were ~ erA Case No. 8166 Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR made. The reckoning period would always be the end of the quarter when the pertinent sales or transactions were made, regardless of when the input VAT was paid.61 Note that the reckoning point for counting the two-year period to file an administrative claim for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT is the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated sales were made. Hence, what is important is not the quarter when the purchases of goods or services were made and the corresponding input taxes were incurred or paid, but rather, the quarter when the zero-rated sales were made. For indeed, it is at the time the zero-rated sales were made that petitioner can establish with definiteness that the input taxes incurred or paid were in fact attributable to its zero-rated sales. As found by the Court-commissioned Independent CPA, Mr. Emmanuel Y. Mendoza, petitioner did not have sales from its generated power for the 3rd quarter of CY 2008 since during this period, construction of its two hydroelectric power plants was still ongoing. It was only in the year 2010 when these power plants became operational and generated power which was sold to DLPCI. 62 Thus, petitioner declared zero-rated sales in its 2010 Quarterly VAT

Returns63 •

Since the claimed input VAT incurred/paid for the 3rd quarter of 2008 may be attributable to the zero-rated sales in 2010, the following shall be the timeline from which the administrative claim may be filed:

Quarter Ending

2-Year Prescriptive Period

Start

End

March 31, 2010

April 1 2010

March 31, 2012 June 30, 2010

July 1 2010

June 30 2012

September 30, 2010 October 1, 2010 September 30, 2012 December 31, 2010 January 1, 2011 December 31, 2012 As can be seen from the above table, only the reported unutilized input taxes as of the end of the first (1st) quarter of 2010 are ripe for refund/issuance of TCC when the administrative claim64 was filed on June 25, 2010.

61 CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 198729-30, January 15, 2014.

62 Exhibit "P-261", p. 16.

63 Exhibits "P-214" to "P-217".

64 Par. 14, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1065. <

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

In relation thereto, Section 110(8) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, states in part that "If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters: xxx Provided, however, That any input tax attributable 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 112."

In applying the afore-mentioned provisions, the Court finds that as of the date of filing of petitioner's administrative claim on June 25, 2010, the entire unutilized input VAT for the 3rd quarter of 2008 amounting to P39,514,045.36 may be the subject of a claim for refund or issuance of TCC as it is in the nature of an excess "Input Tax Carried Over from Previous Period", which may be attributed to the reported zero-rated sales for the first quarter of 2010. Therefore, counting from March 31, 2010, the close of the first quarter of 2010, petitioner's administrative claim filed on June 25, 2010, was well within the two-year prescriptive period. As discussed earlier, the timeliness of petitioner's judicial appeal was already settled by the Court of Tax Appeals En Bane in its Amended Decision in CTA EB No. 798 dated May 30, 2013, which was effectively affirmed by the Supreme Court through its Minute Resolution dated February 17, 2014.

Hence, petitioner timely filed both its administrative and judicial claims.

The Court shall now proceed to determine petitioner's compliance with the other requisites.

First Requisite:

Petitioner is a VAT- registered entity Petitioner complied with the first requisite considering that it is registered with the BIR as a VAT taxpayer in accordance with Section <

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

236 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, with Taxpayer Identification No. 005-633-948-VAT.65

Second Requisite:

Petitioner had zero- rated sales On the second requisite, Section 108(8)(7) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides that sale of power generated through renewable sources of energy is among the transactions subject to zero percent (0°/o) VAT, to wit:

"SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties. -

XXX

XXX

XXX

(B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. -The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent ( 0°/o) rate:

XXX

XXX

XXX

(7) Sale of power or fuel generated through renewable sources of energy such as, but not limited to, biomass, solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, ocean energy, and other emerging energy sources using technologies such as fuel cells and hydrogen fuels." Further, Section 4.108-5(b)(7) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005, implementing the foregoing provision, qualified the applicability of such zero-rating as follows: "SECTION 4.108-5. Zero-Rated Sale of Services. -

XXX

XXX

XXX

65 Par. 9, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1064. <

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

(b) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) VAT Rate. -The following services performed in the Philippines by a VAT- registered person shall be subject to zero percent (0°/o) VAT rate:

XXX

XXX

XXX

(7) Sale of power or fuel generated through renewable sources of energy such as, but not limited to, biomass, solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and steam, ocean energy, and other emerging sources using technologies such as fuel cells and hydrogen fuels; Provided, however, that zero-rating shall apply strictly to the sale of power or fuel generated through renewable sources of energy, and shall not extend to the sale of services related to the maintenance or operation of plants generating said power."

Corollary to the above provisions, Section 4.108-3(f) of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005 states:

~ .~.,.,..

"SECTION 4.108-3. Definitions and Specific Rules on Selected Services. -

XXX

XXX

XXX

(f) Sale of electricity by generation, transmission, and distribution companies shall be subject to 10°/o VAT on their gross receipts: Provided, That sale of power or fuel generated through renewable sources of energy such as, but not limited to, biomass, solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, ocean energy, and other emerging sources using technologies such as fuel cells and hydrogen fuels shall be subject to 0°/o VAT. 'Generation companies' refers to persons or entities authorized by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to operate facilities used in the generation of electricity. For this purpose, generation of electricity refers to the production of electricity by a generation company or a co-generation facility pursuant to the provisions of the R.A. No. 9136 (EPIRA). They shall include all Independent Power Producers (IPPs) and

NPC/Power

Sector

Assets

and

Liabilities

Management

Corporation (PSALM)-owned generation facilities." < Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR Clearly, from the foregoing, to qualify for VAT zero-rating, petitioner must prove by sufficient evidence that it is engaged in the sale of power or fuel generated through renewable sources of energy. Petitioner was incorporated on December 2, 2005, the primary purpose of which is "to engage in the business of owning, developing, constructing, operating, repairing, and maintaining of hydroelectric power plant systems, renewable and indigenous power generation plants and other types of power generation and/or converting stations, and to act as holding company or joint venture partners or investors in the business of developing, operating, and/or owning power generation plants and/or converting stations".66 Petitioner's 42 MW Sibulan Hydro Electric Power Plant consisting of two (2) independent hydroelectric projects namely, Upstream Plant A with installed capacity of about 16.5 MW and Downstream Plant B with installed capacity of about 26 MW have been duly certified by the DOE as consistent with the Power Development Plan of the government.67 Both Plants A and B were duly issued with Certificates of Compliance by the Energy Regulatory Commission.68 Pursuant to the Power Supply Agreement69 executed between petitioner and DLPCI on March 7, 2007, the former undertook to supply the latter with its electricity requirements in its Franchise Area. Accordingly, the agreement shall expire on the twelfth (12th) year from Phase I Supply or early commencement thereof. In its Amended Quarterly VAT Return70 for the first quarter of 2010, petitioner reflected zero-rated sales/receipts in the amount of P20,316,218.41, pertaining to its gross receipts from sales of electricity to DLPCI as evidenced by the VAT zero-rated sales invoice71 and official receipt (0Rf2 issued by petitioner to DLPCI for the same period. 66 Par. 7, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1064. 67 Par. 11, Admitted Facts, Amended JSFI, Docket, vol. II, p. 1065. 68 Exhibits "P-2-1" to "P-2-2", Docket, vol. III, pp. 1118-1119. 69 Exhibit "P-1", Docket, vol. II, pp. 828-934. 70 Exhibit "P-214".

71 Exhibit "P-240".

72 Exhibit "P-241".

~

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

Such sales of electricity generated through a renewable source of energy, particularly, hydropower, qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section 108(B)(7) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

Third Requisite:

Petitioner incurred or paid input taxes To prove that petitioner incurred/paid the excess input VAT amounting to P39,514,045.36 for the 3rd quarter of 2008, it submitted various suppliers' invoices, official receipts, Bureau of Customs (BOC) Import Entries and Internal Revenue Declarations (IEIRDs), and bank official receipts for the remittance of BOC duties and taxes73; which were all examined by the Independent CPA. Upon scrutiny of the Independent CPA Report and the related supporting documents, the Court agrees with the Independent CPA's findings that the input taxes in the amount of P516,138.17 should be disallowed for non-compliance with the substantiation requirements under Sections 110(A) and 113(A) and (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to Sections 4.110-2, 4.110-3, 4.110-8, and 4.113- 1 of RR No. 16-05, as amended. Below is the detailed breakdown of the disallowed input VAT amounting to P516,138.17: 74

Findings

Domestic Purchase of Services

Not properly substantiated:

Input VAT on domestic purchase of services supported by VAT ORs wherein the amount of input VAT in the OR does not tie up with the amount of input VAT in the Company's Schedule Input VAT on domestic purchase of services supported by documents other than VAT ORs Input VAT on domestic purchase of services supported by ORs with no BIR Authority to Print Input VAT on domestic purchase of services supported by VAT ORs dated outside period of claim Input VAT on domestic purchase of services supported by ORs printed with "NON-VAT/NV" Input VAT on domestic purchase of services supported by ORs printed with "NOT A VAUD

SOURCE OF INPUT VAT"

73 Exhibits "P-18" to "P-206".

74 Exhibit "P-261", Annex A.

ICPA Report

(Exh. "P-261 ")

Annex

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

Exhibit No.

Amount

P-88

p 7 152.32

P-89 to P-92

56,305.56

P-93 to P-94

306,847.02

P-95 to P-96

1 516.15

P-97

53 678.00

P-98

2,359.07 ~ CfA Case No. 8166 Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

DECISION

Input VAT on domestic purchase of services posted twice in the Company's schedule Input VAT on domestic purchase of services with no available supporting documents

Domestic Purchase of Goods

Not properly substantiated:

Input VAT on domestic purchase of goods supported by VAT invoices wherein the amount of input VAT in the invoice does not tie up with the amount of input

VAT in the Company's Schedule

Input VAT on domestic purchase of goods supported by documents other than VAT invoices Input VAT on domestic purchase of goods supported by invoices with no BIR Authority to Print Input VAT on domestic purchase of goods supported by VAT invoices dated outside period of claim Input VAT on domestic purchase of goods supported by invoices printed with "NON-vAT/NV" Input VAT on domestic purchase of goods with no available supportinq documents

TOTAL

Page 25 of 29

A-8

405.50

A-9

1 215.97 P429479.59

A-11

P-177

p 198.95

A-12

P-178 to P-188

974.41

A-13

P-189

35.36

A-14

P-190 to P-200

83 560.65

A-15

P-201

58.93

A-16

1,830.28 p 86,658.58 P516,138.17 In addition, petitioner's claimed input VAT in the amount of P6,218,334.86, as detailed below, should also be disallowed for non- compliance with the substantiation requirements under the afore- mentioned VAT law and regulations:

ICPA Report

(Exh. "P-261"} Exhibit

OR/Invoice OR/Invoice

Input VAT

Annex

No.

Supplier

No.

Date

Amount

Domestic Purchase of Services:

Supported with VAT OR but no separate amount indicated for the VAT

A-1

P-20

ABOmZ & COMPANY INC.

102449 8/21/2008 p 7,519.00

A-1

P-21

ABOmZ & COMPANY, INC.

102878 9/19/2008 7 519.00

A-1

P-22

ABOmz & ENERGY SOLUTIONS

1858 8/5/2008 42,000.00

A-1

P-23

ABOmZ & ENERGY SOLUTIONS

1933 9/23/2008 42 000.00

A-1

P-24

ABOmz EQUITY VENTURES

02515 8/4/2008 192.60

A-1

P-25

ABOmz EQUITY VENTURES

02618 9/2/2008 128.40

A-1

P-26

ABOmZ EQUITY VENTURES

02688 9/26/2008 363.00

A-1

P-27

ABOmZ EQUITY VENTURES

02692 9/26/2008 80.40

A-1

P-37

CEBU PRAEDIA DEV. CORP 2960 9/8/2008 235.71

A-1

P-41

EDCOP

16012 7/3/2008 301,830.00

A-1

P-42

ED COP

16013 7/5/2008 30 816.00

A-1

P-43

EDCOP

16014 7/28/2008 35 880.00

A-1

P-44

EDCOP

16019 8/29/2008 31 200.00

A-1

P-45

EDCOP

16020 8/29/2008 33 240.00

A-1

P-46

EDCOP

16021 8/29/2008 33,420.00

A-1

P-47

ED COP

16015 8/4/2008 317,046.00

A-1

P-48

EDCOP

16022 9/5/2008 872,269.09

L__ __ A-l

P-49

EDCOP

16025 9/20/2008 31,200.00 ~ CTA Case No. 8166 Page 26 of 29 Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

QUIKWAY CAROMOVERS

P-74 | INTERNATIONAL INC

QUIKWAY CAROMOVERS

1043 8/21/2008 13,045.94 P-75 _| INTERNATIONAL INC 1044 8/21/2008 6,522.97

QUIKWAY CAROMOVERS

INTERNATIONAL INC 1049 8/27/200/

QUIKWAY CAROMOVERS

P-77 _| INTERNATIONAL INC 1055 9/3/2008

P

~ ron 26,091.88

DECISION

GENSAN STAR SECURITY & ALLIED

A-1 P-53__| SERVICES INC 2467 9/22/2008 1,339.29 A-1 P-55 | EQUIPT RENTALS 1273 7/5/2008 80,475.27

HOUSE OF TRAVEL INC

A-1 P-58_| HOUSE OF TRAVEL INC

A-1 KARL'S KOFFEE KORNER 2615 7/10/2008

A-1 MANTIS SECURITY SERVICES INC 2763 7/18/2008 405.50

A- P-69 | MANTIS SECURITY SERVICES INC

A-1

NDT-PHILS INSPECTION SERVICES | 9376 | 9/18/2008 | 89,820.00 | P-71 | CORP 0376 9/18/2008 89,820.00 P-72 | INTERNATIONAL INC 1038 8/14/2008 6,354.98 P-73 | INTERNATIONAL INC 1039 8/14/2008 6,354.98 13,045.94

QUIKWAY CAROMOVERS

INTERNATIONAL INC 1054 9/3/2008 19,568.91

P-78

SAFEWAY PROTECTIVE &

P-79 _| INVESTIGATION AGENCY 6777

P-80

plpl> [> |> ip |p fe jp > [> |p [> ee a a | 0 0 Dy pz | gay 7/3/2008 1,339.29 ee ee INVESTIGATION AGENCY 6781 7/21/2008 1,339.29 ven, [wetnorscns 0005 9/16/2008 982,592.40

A-1

TOYOTA DAVAO CITY INC 177111

A-2 10/7/2008 53,533.39 | Overclaimed input VAT | —(isi‘“‘—~s‘“‘“‘“RSCSCSSCCC” A-1 P-82 7/4/2008 2.45 | input aT Perclam 76.04) | | Cf hess: InputvaTPerOR 173.59 | | OverclaimedInputvaT ie 245) | ee ee || subtotar | P3,234,733.25 | |DomesticPurchaseofGoods: (is, ‘(‘(™é;S [TOUT Supported with VAT invoice but no separate amount indicated for the VAT ee ee

BLUEGRE COFFEE CORP 19896

76017 7/25/2008 139.30

EXOR LPG CENTER

EXOR LPG CENTER 36885

8/21/2008 696.41 CTA Case No. 8166 Page 27 of 29 Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

DECISION

-10 P-173_| ULAS HARDWARE 806833 7/16/2008 8.04 Supporting VAT invoice issued not in petitioner's name a ee

MIT & COMPANY

Supporting VAT invoice without BIR authority to print ee ee ee PHELP'S DODGE PHIL. ENERGY PROD.

A-10 PHELP'S DODGE PHIL. ENERGY PROD. 174,615.05 PHELP'S DODGE PHIL. ENERGY PROD. 28890 177,256.73 PHELP'S DODGE PHIL. ENERGY PROD. 28889 8/12/2008 184,917.60 8/12/2008 29328 8/19/2008 29327 8/19/2008 29656 8/26/2008 Overclaimed input VAT A-10 P-169 | SACRED HEART GAS STATION 66251 9/1/2008 12.12 fF Less: Input VAT per Invoice 47.35 Po | | verctaimed Input VAT piziz;| | rt—“‘iLSSCCCC(C‘CédCN ee Suttotat_| 2, 983,601.61 PO TOTAL _| PG,218,334.86 In sum, Out of petitioner’s input VAT claim of #39,514,045.36, only the amount of P32,779,572.33 as computed below, is duly substantiated:

[Input VAT claim —“‘“‘CSCC*dSCOC*C(#”WT”C#d:S«~_=2339,514,045.36 | |Less: Disallowances ss —“(i‘“‘;‘drTSSC*C‘“(;$ Od:CC“‘(SC*té*dC | __PerIndependent CPAFindings ss s| 5G, 138.17) |RefundableInputVAT sss 832,779,572.33 |

Fourth and Fifth Requisites:

Petitioner's input taxes were

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR unutilized and attributable to its zero-rated sales Since petitioner's sales for the first quarter of 2010 were all zero- rated, the substantiated input VAT of P32,779,572.33 is entirely attributable thereto.

Further, although the claimed input VAT was carried over in petitioner's succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns, the same was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in the Amended Quarterly VAT Return for the fourth quarter of 201075 and was no longer carried forward to the subsequent Quarterly VAT Returns76• It was noted, however, that the total amount deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in the 4th Quarterly VAT Return for 2010 was P385,134,836.20.77 And as correctly noted by the Independent CPA, such amount included the subject claim of P39,514,045.36.78 Prior to and until such time that it was deducted as a VAT Refund/TCC Claimed in the VAT Returns, petitioner did not incur any output VAT liability. And since the claimed input VAT was deducted in petitioner's 4th Quarterly VAT Return for 2010, it can be ascertained that it will no longer be utilized as credit for any future output VAT liability.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is

ORDERED

TO

REFUND

or TO

ISSUE A TAX CREDIT

CERTIFICATE

to petitioner in the reduced amount of P32,779,572.33 representing petitioner's unutilized input taxes for the 3rd quarter of 2008 attributable to its zero-rated sales.

Associate Justice

Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. vs. CIR

WE CONCUR:

~~c. a:r~ '~­ l~NITO C. CAST AN EDit,' JR.

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

~.,~ C.~ots.. -~ ft:iA-NITO c. CASTANED,\fJ'R..

Associate Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Presiding Justice