797 Phil. 647
BERSAMIN, J.:
Respondent Takenaka, as a subcontractor, entered into an On-Shore Construction Contract with Philippine Air Terminal Co., Inc. (PIATCO) for the purpose of constructing the Ninoy Aquino Terminal III (NAIA-IPT3).
PIATCO is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines and was duly registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), as an Ecozone Developer/Operator under RA 7916.
Respondent Takenaka filed its Quarterly VAT Returns for the four quarters of taxable year 2002 on April 24, 2002, July 22, 2002, October 22, 2002 and January 22, 2003, respectively. Subsequently, respondent Takenaka amended its quarterly VAT returns several times. In its final amended Quarterly VAT Returns, the following were indicated thereon:
Exh. Year Zero-rate Sales/Receipts Taxable Sales Output VAT Input VAT 2002 This Quarter Excess Q 1st P854,160,170.42 P5,292,340.00 P529,234.00 P52,044,766.05 P51,515,532.05 II 2nd 599,459,273.90 60,588,638.09 60,588,638.09 DDD 3rd 480,168,744.90 55,234,736.15 55,234,736.15 VVV 4th 304,283,730.15 30,494,993.51 30,494,993.51 TOTAL P2.23 8,071,899.37 P5,292,340.00 P529,234.00 P198,363,133.80 P197,833,899.80
On January 13, 2003, the BIR issued VAT Ruling No. 011-03 which states that the sales of goods and services rendered by respondent Takenaka to PIATCO are subject to zero-percent (0%) VAT and requires no prior approval for zero rating based on Revenue Memorandum Circular 74-99.
On April 11, 2003, respondent Takenaka filed its claim for tax refund covering the aforesaid period before the BIR Revenue District Office No. 51, Pasay City Branch.
For failure of the BIR to act on its claim, respondent Takenaka filed a Petition for Review with this Court, docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 6886.
After trial on the merits, on November 4, 2008, the Former First Division rendered a Decision partly granting the Petition for Review and ordering herein petitioner CIR to refund to respondent Takenaka the reduced amount of P53,374,366.52, with a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion from Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta.
Not satisfied, on November 26, 2008, respondent Takenaka filed a "Motion for Reconsideration".
During the deliberation of respondent Takenaka's "Motion for Reconsideration", Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova changed his stand and concurred with Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, while the original Ponente, Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, maintained his stand. Thus, respondent Takenaka's "Motion for Reconsideration" was granted by the Former First Division in its Amended Decision dated March 16, 2009, with a Dissenting Opinion from Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista.
On April 7, 2009, petitioner CIR filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" of the Amended Decision, which the Former First Division denied in a Resolution dated June 29, 2009, with Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista reiterating his Dissenting Opinion.[3]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Amended Decision dated March 16, 2009 and Resolution dated June 29, 2009 rendered by the Former First Division are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one is hereby entered DENYING respondent Takenaka's claimed input tax attributable to its zero rated sales of services for taxable year 2002 in the amount of P143,997,333.40.
SO ORDERED.[5]
(1) An administrative claim must be filed with the CIR within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. (2) The CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. The 120-day period may extend beyond the two-year period from the filing of the administrative claim if the claim is filed in the later part of the two-year period. If the 120-day period expires without any decision from the CIR, then the administrative claim may be considered to be denied by inaction.
(3) A judicial claim must be filed with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the CIR's decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period without any action from the CIR. (4) All taxpayers, however, can rely on BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on 10 December 2003 up to its reversal by this Court in Aichi on 6 October 2010, as an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional 120+30 day periods.
Amount Claimed and Taxable Period covered | Close of quarter when sales were made | Last day for filing administrative claim for refund (2 years) | Actual date of filing of administrative claim for refund | Last day for filing judicial claim with CTA (120+30) | Actual filing of judicial claim with CTA |
P51,515,532.05, 1st quarter of 2002 | March 31, 2002 | March 31, 2004 | April 11, 2003 | September 8, 2003 | March 10, 2004 |
P60,588,638.09, 2nd quarter of 2002 | June 30, 2002 | June 30, 2004 | |||
P55,234,736.15, 3rd quarter of 2002 | September 30, 2002 | September 30, 2004 | |||
P30,494,993.51, 4th quarter of 2002 | December 31, 2002 | December 31, 2004 |
Section 113 of the NIRC of 1997 provides that a VAT invoice is necessary for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties, while a VAT official receipt properly pertains to every lease of goods or properties; as well as to every sale, barter or exchange of services.
The Court has in fact distinguished an invoice from a receipt in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation:
A "sales or commercial invoice" is a written account of goods sold or services rendered indicating the prices charged therefor or a list by whatever name it is known which is used in the ordinary course of business evidencing sale and transfer or agreement to sell or transfer goods and services.
A "receipt" oh the other hand is a written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in money or other settlement between seller and buyer of goods, debtor or creditor, or person rendering services and client or customer.
A VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of goods or services to the buyer, while a VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. A VAT invoice and a VAT receipt should not be confused and made to refer to one and the same thing. Certainly, neither does the law intend the two to be used alternatively. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
In a claim for tax refund or tax credit, the applicant must prove not only entitlement to the grant of the claim under substantive law. It must also show satisfaction of all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim for a refund or tax credit. Hence, the mere fact that petitioner's application for zero-rating has been approved by the CIR does not, by itself, justify the grant of a refund or tax credit. The taxpayer claiming the refund must further comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements mandated by the NIRC, as well as by revenue regulations implementing them. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)