G.R. No. L-4268 - Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Ramos

Petitioner: Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), head of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), authorized to act on claims for refund or issuance of tax credit certificates.
Respondent: CE Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in designing, developing, constructing, and operating a combined irrigation and hydro-electric power project in Central Luzon, under contract with the National Irrigation Administration (NIA).
Respondent is a duly accredited Private Sector Generation Facility by the Department of Energy and has a Certificate of Compliance from the Energy Regulatory Commission. It is also a registered VAT taxpayer.

Respondent filed Quarterly VAT Returns for 2008 and later filed amended returns.
Respondent filed two administrative claims for refund/tax credit at the BIR in 2009 and 2010 for unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales to NIA:

First claim (November 11, 2009) for PHP 6,264,758.82 covering first quarter of 2008.
Second claim (February 16, 2010) for PHP 13,917,771.50 covering second to fourth quarters of 2008, amended later to PHP 13,798,917.42.

Respondent filed two petitions for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) due to inaction by the BIR, docketed as CTA Cases Nos. 8041 and 8111. These cases were consolidated.

CTA Second Division partially granted the claim for refund in the amount of PHP 19,219,165.31 representing unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales to NIA for 2008.
The Division ruled that power generated from renewable sources sold to NIA qualifies as VAT zero-rated sales under Section 108(B)(7) of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code), as amended by RA 9337.
The Division found that only PHP 19,219,165.31 out of the total claimed input VAT was duly substantiated.
It was also held that respondent’s administrative and judicial claims were timely filed within the prescriptive period.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

CTA En Banc dismissed petitioner’s petition for review and affirmed the findings of the CTA Division.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was also denied.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari, raising mainly the issues of timeliness and sufficiency of supporting documents in respondent’s claim for VAT refund.

Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari suffers from a technical or formal defect requiring dismissal.

Whether the CTA En Banc committed reversible error in affirming the CTA Division’s decision, particularly:

Whether respondent’s administrative and judicial claims for refund of unutilized input VAT were timely filed in accordance with the prescriptive periods under Section 112 of the Tax Code.
Whether the 120-day period for the BIR to act on the claim should be counted from the filing of complete documents required under Revenue Memorandum Order No. 53-98 or from the filing of the administrative claim itself.
Whether respondent sufficiently substantiated its entitlement to the refund claim.
Whether the CTA is precluded from considering new evidence not presented during the administrative phase.
Whether a judicial claim was prematurely filed in violation of the 120-day waiting period rule.