CTA Case No. 5306 (Decision)

Cl{l�PV(]3�JC OP PIPE CJ?J{J�Jcpq>J:N�S COVCJ{~OP~AXft~ft�S QVP.ZO:N CIPY BENGUET CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- CTA CASE NO. 5306 COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: ... INTERNAL REVENUE, APR 15 1998y�d Respondent X -------------------------------------------------------X DECISION This is a petition seeking for the issuance of tax credit certificates in the amounts of P19,830,759.02 and P18,423,068.73 or an aggrt;galti amowtl of P38,253,827.75, representing alleged unutilized input tax credits for the quarters ended rvfarch 31, 1994 and June 30, 1994. Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the mining business which includes the exploration, development and operation of mining properties for purposes of commercial production, and the marketing of marketable mineral products produced by it. Almost 100% of its mineral products are exported. Petitioner ic; a VAT registered taxpayer with VAT Registration No. 31-9-000027 (Exh. "A"). Likewise, on May 4, 1988, it obtained from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)an approval of its application for zero rate on its sales of mineral products (Exh. "H").

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5306 Page- 2 For the quarter ended March 31, 1994, petitioner filed its VAT return and amended VAT return with the BIRon April 20, 1994 and May 12, 1994, respectively (Exhs. "C" and "D"), reflecting a total VAT output tax of P7,098,575.34 and a total VAT input tax of P28,947,249.12, resulting in excess input taxes in the amount of P21,848,673.78, computed as follows: Gross taxable goods/services P 70,985,753.40 P 7,098,575.34 (VAT output tax) Less: Details of Purchases Domestic purchases 245,721,069.90 24,572,106.99 (VAT input tax) of goods/services 43,751,421.30 4,375,142.13 (VAT inpullax) hnporlal.ion of goods P21. R4R.673. 78 Excess input taxes In the same manner, for the quarter ended June 30, 1994, petitioner filed with the BIR its VAT return on July 20, 1994 (Exh. "E") reflecting a total VAT output tax ofP5,349,668.18 and a total VAT input ta"< ofP 24,085,709.61, resulting in excess input ta.xes amounting to P18,736,041.43, computed as follows: Gmss taxable goods/services p 53,496,681.80 P 5,349,668.18 (VAT output tax) Less: Details of purchases Domestic purchases 19,917,771.23 (VAT input tax) of goods/services 199,177,712.30 4,167,938.38 (VAT input tax) hnportation of goods 41,679,383.80 P1K.736.041.43 Excess input taxes Pursuant to BIR Revenue Audit Memorandum Order No. 2-93, petitioner filed with the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and�Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance separate app11cations for tax credit of excess input taxes paid during the period January to March 1994 on April 26, 1995 in the amount of

DECISION- C.T.A. CASE NO. 5306 Page- 3 P19,830, 759.02 (Exh. "F") and during the period April to June 1994 on June 6, 1995 in the amount ofP18,423,068.73 (Exh. "H''). There being no action on the patt of herein respondent, the instant petition was filed on December 20, 1995 to forestall the running of the prescriptive period for claiming tax refunds or credits. On May 29, 1996, upon petitioner's motion, this Court declared respondent in default for failure to file her Answer despite receipt of summons on December 29, 1995. The sole issue for resolution by this Court is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the issuance of tax credit certificates totaling P38,253,827.75 representing unutilized input VAT tax credits tor the quarters ended March and June 1994. After a thorough consideration of all the evidence presented, We rule against the petitioner. It bears emphasis that in Our resolution dated February 12, 1997, Exhibits "K", "L", "M'' and "0", inclusive of submarkings, were denied admission "due tu the fact that these exhibits, although part uf petitioner's formal utTer uf evidence, were nut duly marked by a Deputy Clerk uf Court ur a designated Commissioner, and because uf the following grounds: CTA Circular No. 1-95 provides that the receipt4j, invoices, and other documents covering the tax accounts ur tax payments fur the period involved must be pre-marked by the party concerned. The Circular dues nut say that the Summary containing the total amount of said account4j or tax payment4j and Certification of an independent CPA attesting tu the correctness uf the contents uf the Summary must also be pre-marked by the party concerned. Said circular only requires that the Summary and the Certification must

DECISION- C.T.A. CASE NO. 5306 Page- 4 be properly identified by a competent witness from the accounting firm and therefore should be properly marked by the Clerk of Court as part of its evidence. " (CTA records, pp. 97-98). Likewise, Exhibits "K-1-1" to "K-36-128" and "M-1-1" to "M-38-67" were denied admission "as these all correspond to photocopies of value-added tax invoices which were all pre-marked and supposedly covered by the summaries that were all denied admission for reasons specified in no. 2 of this resolution. The admission of pre-marked document~ is allowed only if the summaries/schedules covering such document~ were properly presented, identified and marked in Court. In the instant case, the summaries were not marked, hence these pre- marked document~ cannot be admitted as evidence for the petitioner." (CTA records, p. 9R). It follows then that with the denial of the aforementioned exhibits, petitioner's petition has practically nothing to stand on since the summaries of creditable value- added input taxes paid, together with its supporting invoices which could have proven the input taxes paid as well as the summaries of foreign currency inward remittances together with its supporting bank statements which could have also proven the amount of foreign cwn~ncy inwardly remitted (and in effect the fact of expott sales), were all denied admission. Petitioner, on its part, did not even bother to move for a reconsideration of the resolution denying these exhibits, hence, we can only decide the case on the basis of the evidence admitted.

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5306 Page- 5 WHEREFORE, while legally speaking, petitioner may be entitled to be issued tax credit certificates, We are left with no recourse but to DISMISS the instant petition for insufficiency of evidence. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: {f ~I RAMON 0.PDz.:r~ Associate Judge CRRTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above decision was reached after due consultation ~ith the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. ~~ .~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals