Title
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Vestas Services Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 255085
Decision Date
Mar 29, 2023
VSPI sought a VAT refund for 2013, claiming timely filing and substantiating partial entitlement; SC upheld CTA's decision, emphasizing procedural flexibility and factual deference.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 255085)

Antecedents of the Case

The case evolved from VSPI's claim for a refund of unutilized input VAT related to its operations as a domestic corporation providing installation and construction services within the renewable energy sector. After filing its Quarterly VAT Return on March 20, 2014, along with a claim for refund, VSPI argued that it generated gross receipts totaling PHP 546,196,162.22 during the quarter, with an unutilized input VAT of PHP 41,659,221.63 attributed to zero-rated transactions with EDC Burgos Wind Power Corporation.

Initial Rulings and Procedural History

Initially, on May 26, 2017, the CTA Division dismissed VSPI's claim citing a lack of jurisdiction due to the late filing of the judicial claim. However, subsequent developments, including a motion for reconsideration which highlighted procedural deficiencies in the CIR's original arguments, led to the reopening of the case. Eventually, the CTA admitted supplemental evidence showing that VSPI's administrative claim was timely, leading to a partial grant of the refund amounting to PHP 4,390,198.45 as established in the August 31, 2018 Amended Decision.

Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals

The CTA affirmed the claim for refund based on findings that VSPI's sales of services to EDC Burgos were zero-rated in accordance with the Renewable Energy Act (RA 9513) and relevant provisions of the Tax Code. The CTA frowned upon the CIR’s argument against the merits of admitting supplemental evidence, supporting its ruling based on procedural technicalities and the nature of administrative claims.

Further Appeals and Decisions

Dissatisfied with the CTA's ruling, the CIR escalated the matter to the CTA En Banc, arguing that the supplemental evidence should not have been admitted and contesting the timeliness of VSPI's judicial claim. However, the En Banc found no merit in these arguments, concluding that timely filing was established and that procedural rules were appropriately relaxed by the CTA in the interests of substantial justice.

Timeliness of Judicial Claim

The court painstakingly outlined the critical timeline relevant to the filing and denial of tax refund claims as stipulated under Section 112 of the Tax Code. It underscored that the 30-day wi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.