This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-07-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 112(C) of the NIRC, the CIR has 120 days to decide the taxpayer's claim from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Section 112(A) of the NIRC. In Intel Technology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[15] we ruled that once the taxpayer has established by sufficient evidence that it is entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate, in accordance with the requirements of Section 112(A) of the NIRC, its claim should be granted. | |||||
|
2013-02-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. CIR,[72] the Court stated: "The issues to be resolved in the instant case are (1) whether the absence of the BIR authority to print or the absence of the TIN-V in petitioner's export sales invoices operates to forfeit its entitlement to a tax refund/credit of its unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales; and (2) whether petitioner's failure to indicate "TIN-V" in its sales invoices automatically invalidates its claim for a tax credit certification." Again, nowhere in this case did the Court discuss, state, or rule that the filing dates of the administrative and judicial claims are inconsequential, as long as they are within the two-year prescriptive period. | |||||
|
2013-02-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In a Resolution[28] dated 7 April 2010, the CTA Second Division denied the CIR's motion. The CTA Second Division ruled that the legislature did not intend that Section 112 (Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax) should be read in isolation from Section 229 (Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected) or vice versa. The CTA Second Division applied the mandatory statute of limitations in seeking judicial recourse prescribed under Section 229 to claims for refund or tax credit under Section 112. | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| To bolster its claim for tax refund or credit, Kepco cites the case of Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[17] Kepco's reliance on the said case is misplaced because the factual milieu there is quite different from that of the case at bench. In the Intel case, the claim for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate was denied due to the taxpayer's failure to reflect or indicate in the sales invoices the BIR authority to print. The Court held that the BIR authority to print was not one of the items required by law or BIR regulation to be indicated or reflected in the invoices or receipts, hence, the BIR erred in denying the claim for refund. In the present case, however, the principal ground for the denial was the absence of the word "zero-rated" on the invoices, in clear violation of the invoicing requirements under Section 108(B)(3) of the 1997 NIRC, in conjunction with Section 4.108-1 of R.R. No. 7-95. | |||||
|
2011-01-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner posits that the denial by the CTA En Banc of its claim for refund of input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales has no legal basis because the printing of the ATP and the word "zero-rated" on the export sales invoices are not required under Sections 113 and 237 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).[31] And since there is no law requiring the ATP and the word "zero-rated" to be indicated on the sales invoices,[32] the absence of such information in the sales invoices should not invalidate the petition[33] nor result in the outright denial of a claim for tax credit/refund.[34] To support its position, petitioner cites Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[35] where Intel's failure to print the ATP on the sales invoices or receipts did not result in the outright denial of its claim for tax credit/refund.[36] Although the cited case only dealt with the printing of the ATP, petitioner submits that the reasoning in that case should also apply to the printing of the word "zero-rated."[37] Hence, failure to print of the word "zero-rated" on the sales invoices should not result in the denial of a claim. | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| A taxpayer engaged in zero-rated transactions may apply for tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificate for unutilized input VAT, subject to the following requirements: (1) the taxpayer is engaged in sales which are zero-rated (i.e., export sales) or effectively zero-rated; (2) the taxpayer is VAT-registered; (3) the claim must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made; (4) the creditable input tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales, except the transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against the output tax; and (5) in case of zero-rated sales under Section 106 (A) (2) (a) (1) and (2), Section 106 (B) and Section 108 (B) (1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof have been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations.[7] | |||||
|
2010-02-08 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Panasonic's citation of Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[16] is misplaced. Quite the contrary, it strengthens the position taken by respondent CIR. In that case, the CIR denied the claim for tax refund on the ground of the taxpayer's failure to indicate on its invoices the "BIR authority to print." But Sec. 4.108-1 required only the following to be reflected on the invoice: The name, taxpayer's identification number (TIN) and address of seller; Date of transaction; Quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service; The name, TIN, business style, if any, and address of the VAT-registered purchaser, customer or client; The word "zero-rated" imprinted on the invoice covering zero-rated sales; and The invoice value or consideration. | |||||