Case Digest (G.R. No. 191495)
Facts:
Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 191495, July 23, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Martires, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation (Nippon Express) sought judicial review of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc decision of 15 December 2009 in CTA EB No. 492, which affirmed the CTA Second Division’s 5 December 2008 decision denying Nippon Express’s claim for refund/tax credit.Nippon Express, a VAT-registered domestic corporation, filed an administrative application with the LTDO, BIR (Revenue Region No. 8) on 30 March 2005 for issuance of a tax credit certificate (TCC) for excess/unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for all four quarters of 2004, amounting to P27,828,748.95. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) did not act on the application within the statutory period, and Nippon Express filed a petition for review with the CTA on 31 March 2006.
At trial before the CTA Second Division, the CIR challenged the sufficiency of Nippon Express’s documentary proof, arguing the claimant sustained zero-rated sales of services but presented sales invoices and secondary documents rather than VAT official receipts. The CTA Division denied the claim on 5 December 2008 for failure to submit the required VAT official receipts for sales of services. Nippon Express’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CTA Division on 5 May 2009. Nippon Express then appealed to the CTA En Banc on 10 June 2009.
The CTA En Banc, in a decision of 15 December 2009, affirmed the CTA Division’s denial. A lone dissent by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta argued that an official receipt is not the sole acceptable evidence and invoked the disjunctive “or” in Sections 113 and 237 of the NIRC and non-retroactivity of R.A. No. 9337. Nippon Express filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, repeating that invoices and other documents suffice and asking leave to submit official receipts in addit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Tax Appeals acquire jurisdiction over Nippon Express’s petition for review given the timetable for administrative action and appeal?
- Was Nippon Express’s documentary evidence — primarily sales invoices and supporting secondary documents — sufficient to substantiate zero-rated sales of services for purposes of a refund/TCC under Section 112 of the NIRC, or is a VAT...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)