G.R. No. 174212 - Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Phil. Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Philippines Corp. is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing and exporting computer products.
The corporation is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a Value-added Tax (VAT) taxpayer, as evidenced by its Certificate of Registration and Taxpayer Identification Number.
It is also registered with the Export Processing Zone Authority as an Ecozone Export Enterprise.

On 4 August 2000, Hitachi filed an administrative claim before the BIR for a refund or tax credit amounting to P25,023,471.84. This sum represents the excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated export sales for the four taxable quarters of 1999.
Due to the BIR’s inaction, Hitachi elevated the matter by filing a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on 2 July 2001.
The first decision came on 9 March 2004 when the CTA First Division denied its claim for refund or tax credit.
Hitachi filed a motion for reconsideration, which was similarly denied on 9 December 2004 by the CTA First Division.
Following this, on 26 January 2005, Hitachi filed a petition for review with the CTA En Banc.
The CTA En Banc, in its decision on 22 March 2006, affirmed the earlier decision of the CTA First Division, thereby denying the claim once again.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration was filed by Hitachi, which was dismissed by the CTA En Banc on 14 August 2006, leading to the present petition.

Hitachi’s export sales invoices lacked the pre-printed Taxpayer’s Identification Number (TIN) followed by the word “VAT,” as well as the required “zero-rated” indication.
The invoices were not registered with the BIR, and they did not contain a BIR permit number.
These omissions placed the invoices in non-compliance with mandatory invoicing requirements under Section 113(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulation No. 7-95 (RR 7-95).

Section 113(A) of the NIRC mandates the indication of the seller’s status as a VAT-registered person, including the TIN, on invoices.
Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95, which had already taken effect prior to the petitions, required that invoices for zero-rated sales explicitly print the word “zero-rated.”
Section 237 of the NIRC requires the proper registration of sales invoices with the BIR.

Whether Hitachi’s failure to comply with the invoicing requirements prescribed under Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95 is sufficient to invalidate its claim for a VAT refund for the taxable year 1999.
Whether Hitachi has adequately complied with the relevant requirements for its VAT refund claim by providing evidence of zero-rated sales through its export sales invoices.
Whether the CTA En Banc erred in affirming the previous decisions of the CTA First Division by denying Hitachi’s claim for a VAT refund.
Whether the non-fulfillment of multiple invoicing criteria (such as the absence of the pre-printed TIN followed by “VAT,” the omission of the term “zero-rated,” and the lack of proper BIR registration) justifies the denial of the refund claim.