Case Digest (G.R. No. 247918) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
CBK Power Company Limited (CBK), a Philippine VAT-registered special purpose partnership organized to rehabilitate and operate hydroelectric power plants in Laguna, entered into a Build-Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer Agreement with the National Power Corporation and a Turnkey Contract with IMPSA Construction Corporation. For calendar year 2012, CBK filed and later amended its monthly VAT declarations and quarterly VAT returns, then lodged an administrative claim on November 18, 2013 for a PHP 50,060,766.08 refund of alleged unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales. The BIR did not act on the claim, prompting CBK to file a Petition for Review before the CTA Special First Division on March 21, 2014. The CIR answered, challenging CBK’s documentation, timeliness, burden of proof, and jurisdictional basis. The CTA Special First Division denied the refund on the ground that under Section 15(g) of RA 9513 (the Renewable Energy Act of 2008), CBK’s purchases were zero-rat Case Digest (G.R. No. 247918) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and Parties
- CBK Power Company Limited (CBK) is a Philippine partnership, VAT-registered, and a special purpose entity formed to design, finance, construct, operate, maintain, and manage the Kalayaan II pump-storage hydroelectric plant and rehabilitate related facilities under a BROT Agreement with the National Power Corporation (NPC).
- CBK contracted with IMPSA Construction Corporation under a turnkey contract for plant rehabilitation, construction, commissioning, and handover.
- VAT Filing and Refund Claim
- CBK filed its monthly VAT declarations and quarterly VAT returns for CY 2012, then amended them on October 18, 2013.
- On November 18, 2013, CBK filed an administrative claim for refund of PHP 50,060,766.08 for alleged unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales under NIRC §§ 108(B)(7) and 112(A). The BIR did not act, prompting CBK to file a petition with the CTA Special First Division (SFD) on March 21, 2014.
- Proceedings Below
- CIR Answer (April 14, 2014) raised lack of documentation, prescriptive period issues, burden of proof, pro-forma claim, and CTA’s lack of jurisdiction.
- CTA SFD Decision (February 23, 2017) and Resolution (July 11, 2017) held CBK’s claims timely and its sales zero-rated under NIRC, but denied refund because purchases were zero-rated under RA 9513 § 15(g), hence no input VAT was passed on.
- CTA En Banc Decision (February 20, 2019) and Resolution (June 27, 2019) affirmed, ruling RA 9513 applies mandatorily to all RE developers without requiring DOE registration. Associate Justice Manahan dissented in part, urging factual appraisal of refund requisites.
- CBK’s Petition for Review on Certiorari (July 25, 2019) to the Supreme Court challenges the RA 9513 application raised sua sponte, denial of due process, and asserts entitlement to refund under NIRC §§ 108(B)(7), 112(A) & (C).
Issues:
- Procedural Issue
- Should CBK’s motion to refer this Petition to the Supreme Court En Banc be granted?
- Substantive Issues
- Is CBK, absent registration with the Department of Energy (DOE), entitled to VAT incentives under Republic Act No. 9513?
- Is CBK entitled to a refund of PHP 50,060,766.08 representing unutilized or excess input VAT?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)