G.R. No. 247918 - CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

CBK entered BROT and Turnkey contracts (1998–2000) to rehabilitate and operate hydroelectric plants for NPC.
CBK made domestic purchases (goods, services, capital goods) in CY 2012, filed VAT returns and amended them, claiming PHP 50,060,766.08 unutilized input VAT.
Administrative refund claim filed November 18, 2013; BIR did not act.
CBK filed judicial petition with CTA Special First Division March 21, 2014. CIR answered, raising documentation, prescriptive period, burden of proof, and jurisdictional challenges.

CTA Special First Division (Feb. 23, 2017): Denied refund, finding CBK’s purchases zero-rated under RA 9513 (no input VAT shifted).
CTA Special First Division Resolution (July 11, 2017): Denied CBK’s motion for reconsideration.
CTA En Banc Decision (Feb. 20, 2019): Affirmed Special Division; held CBK entitled to zero-rated VAT under RA 9513 despite lack of DOE registration.
CTA En Banc Resolution (June 27, 2019): Denied CBK’s motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court Rule 45 Petition (July 25, 2019): CBK challenged CTA rulings, moved for En Banc referral.

Should the case be referred to the Supreme Court En Banc?
Is CBK entitled to VAT zero-rate incentives under RA 9513 without DOE registration?
Is CBK entitled to a refund of PHP 50,060,766.08?

Timeliness: Granted; refund claims timely.
Zero-rating: Recognized CBK’s electricity sales zero-rated under NIRC Sec. 108(B)(7).
RA 9513 Incentive: Held all input purchases by RE Developers zero-rated under Sec. 15(g), thus no input VAT to refund.
Denied refund.

Agreed on timeliness and sales zero-rating.
Held RA 9513 applies automatically to all RE Developers, without DOE registration requirement.
Denied CBK’s refund.
Concurring and Dissenting: Associate Justice Manahan would have remanded to examine factual proof of paid input VAT.

Registration Requirement: RA 9513 Secs. 15, 25, 26 plainly require DOE certification upon registration as condition for incentives.
DOE IRR: Reinforces that only DOE-registered and certified RE Developers may avail zero-rate VAT on sales and input purchases; requires Certificate of Endorsement, BOI registration, additional criteria.
BIR RR 7-2022: Corroborates DOE IRR; local suppliers must verify BOI and DOE registrations before zero-rating VAT.
Interpretation: Clear and unambiguous law permits no automatic incentive; registration and certification are “sine qua non.”
CBK Status: Admitted non-registration with DOE; therefore transactions subject to 12% VAT.

Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging CTA En Banc Decision (Feb. 20, 2019) and Resolution (June 27, 2019).
Underlying CTA En Banc rulings affirmed the CTA Special First Division Decision (Feb. 23, 2017) and Resolution (July 11, 2017) denying CBK’s PHP 50,060,766.08 VAT refund claim.
CBK moved to refer the petition to the Supreme Court En Banc (July 25, 2019); Supreme Court denied referral as discretionary and lacking compelling reasons.

CBK Power Company Limited (“CBK”) is a Philippine partnership, VAT-registered, created as special purpose entity to rehabilitate and operate Kalayaan II pump storage hydroelectric plant and related assets in Laguna.
On September 20, 2000, CBK acceded to a Build-Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer (BROT) Agreement with NPC and IMPSA, undertaking design, construction, operation, and maintenance in exchange for recovery and O&M fees.
CBK engaged IMPSA Construction Corporation under a fixed-price Turnkey Contract (Aug. 18, 2000) for rehabilitation and construction of civil and mechanical works.
For calendar year 2012, CBK filed monthly VAT declarations and quarterly VAT returns (original and amended) and on November 18, 2013 filed an administrative claim for refund of alleged unutilized/excess input VAT of PHP 50,060,766.08 under NIRC §§ 108(B)(7) and 112(A).
BIR failed to act; CBK filed Petition for Review with CTA Special First Division (Mar. 21, 2014). CIR filed Answer raising defenses on jurisdiction, documentation, burden of proof, prescriptive period, and pro forma administrative claim.

Whether CBK is entitled to a cash/VAT refund of PHP 50,060,766.08 for unutilized input taxes attributable to zero-rated sales in 2012 under NIRC §§ 108(B)(7), 112(A).
Whether CBK qualifies for zero-rated VAT incentives under Republic Act No. 9513 (Renewable Energy Act of 2008) without DOE registration.
Whether the petition should be referred to the Supreme Court En Banc.

Found CBK’s administrative and judicial refund claims were timely filed and CBK’s hydropower sales qualified for zero-rated VAT under NIRC § 108(B)(7).
Held CBK not entitled to refund because, under RA 9513 § 15(g