ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
[G.R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008]
FACTS:
Atlas is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws engaged in the production of copper concentrates for export.
Atlas applied with the BIR for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund under Section 106(b) of the Tax Code.
Atlas then filed a petition for review with the CTA on February 22, 1995 to prevent the running of the prescriptive period under Sec. 230 of the Tax Code.
On October 13, 1997, the CTA rendered a Decision denying Atlas’ claim for tax credit or refund.
Respondent CIR filed his Answer asserting that Atlas has the burden of proving erroneous or illegal payment of the tax being claimed for refund, as claims for refund are strictly construed against the taxpayer
In denying Atlas’ claim for tax credit or refund, the CTA held that Atlas failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of tax credit or refund for the alleged input taxes paid by Atlas. Relying on Revenue Regulation No. (RR) 3-88 which was issued to implement the then VAT law and list the documents to be submitted in actions for refunds or tax credits of input taxes in export sales, it found that the documents submitted by Atlas did not comply with said regulation. It pointed out that Atlas failed to submit photocopies of export documents, invoices, or receipts evidencing the sale of goods and others.
Atlas timely filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision contending that it relied on Sec. 106 of the Tax Code which merely required proof that the foreign exchange proceeds has been accounted for in accordance with the regulations of the Central Bank of the Philippines. Consequently, Atlas asserted that the documents it presented, coupled with the testimony of its Accounting and Finance Manager sufficiently proved its case. It argued that RR 3-88 was issued for claims for refund of input VAT to be processed by the BIR, that is, for administrative claims, and not for judicial claims as in the present case. Anyhow, Atlas prayed for a re-trial, even as it admitted that it has committed a mistake or excusable negligence when the CTA ruled that RR 3-88 should be the one applied for Atlas to submit the basis required under the regulation.
On Atlas’ appeal, the CA denied and dismissed Atlas’ petition on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to support Atlas’ action for tax credit or refund.
ISSUE: Whether Atlas has sufficiently proven entitlement to a tax credit or refund.
HELD:
No.
The Rules of Court, which is suppletory in quasi-judicial proceedings, particularly Sec. 349 of Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence, is clear that no evidence which has not been formally offered shall be considered. Thus, where the pertinent invoices or receipts purportedly evidencing the VAT paid by Atlas were not submitted, the courts a quo evidently could not determine the veracity of the input VAT Atlas has paid. Moreover, when Atlas likewise failed to submit pertinent export documents to prove actual export sales with due certification from accredited banks on the export proceeds in foreign currency with the corresponding conversion rate into Philippine currency, the courts a quo likewise could not determine the veracity of the export sales as indicated in Atlas’ amended VAT return.
It must be noted that the most competent evidence must be adduced and presented to prove the allegations in a complaint, petition, or protest before a judicial court. And where the best evidence cannot be submitted, secondary evidence may be presented. In the instant case, the pertinent documents which are the best pieces of evidence were not presented.
[G.R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008]
FACTS:
Atlas is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws engaged in the production of copper concentrates for export.
Atlas applied with the BIR for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund under Section 106(b) of the Tax Code.
Atlas then filed a petition for review with the CTA on February 22, 1995 to prevent the running of the prescriptive period under Sec. 230 of the Tax Code.
On October 13, 1997, the CTA rendered a Decision denying Atlas’ claim for tax credit or refund.
Respondent CIR filed his Answer asserting that Atlas has the burden of proving erroneous or illegal payment of the tax being claimed for refund, as claims for refund are strictly construed against the taxpayer
In denying Atlas’ claim for tax credit or refund, the CTA held that Atlas failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of tax credit or refund for the alleged input taxes paid by Atlas. Relying on Revenue Regulation No. (RR) 3-88 which was issued to implement the then VAT law and list the documents to be submitted in actions for refunds or tax credits of input taxes in export sales, it found that the documents submitted by Atlas did not comply with said regulation. It pointed out that Atlas failed to submit photocopies of export documents, invoices, or receipts evidencing the sale of goods and others.
Atlas timely filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision contending that it relied on Sec. 106 of the Tax Code which merely required proof that the foreign exchange proceeds has been accounted for in accordance with the regulations of the Central Bank of the Philippines. Consequently, Atlas asserted that the documents it presented, coupled with the testimony of its Accounting and Finance Manager sufficiently proved its case. It argued that RR 3-88 was issued for claims for refund of input VAT to be processed by the BIR, that is, for administrative claims, and not for judicial claims as in the present case. Anyhow, Atlas prayed for a re-trial, even as it admitted that it has committed a mistake or excusable negligence when the CTA ruled that RR 3-88 should be the one applied for Atlas to submit the basis required under the regulation.
On Atlas’ appeal, the CA denied and dismissed Atlas’ petition on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to support Atlas’ action for tax credit or refund.
ISSUE: Whether Atlas has sufficiently proven entitlement to a tax credit or refund.
HELD:
No.
The Rules of Court, which is suppletory in quasi-judicial proceedings, particularly Sec. 349 of Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence, is clear that no evidence which has not been formally offered shall be considered. Thus, where the pertinent invoices or receipts purportedly evidencing the VAT paid by Atlas were not submitted, the courts a quo evidently could not determine the veracity of the input VAT Atlas has paid. Moreover, when Atlas likewise failed to submit pertinent export documents to prove actual export sales with due certification from accredited banks on the export proceeds in foreign currency with the corresponding conversion rate into Philippine currency, the courts a quo likewise could not determine the veracity of the export sales as indicated in Atlas’ amended VAT return.
It must be noted that the most competent evidence must be adduced and presented to prove the allegations in a complaint, petition, or protest before a judicial court. And where the best evidence cannot be submitted, secondary evidence may be presented. In the instant case, the pertinent documents which are the best pieces of evidence were not presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment