AIR DRILLING ASSOCIATES PTE LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC AIR DRILLING ASSOCIATES PTE CTA EB NO. 3127 LTD., (CTA CASE NO. 10545) Petitioner, Members: -versus- Present: Ringpis-Liban_, P.J., Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, F errer-Flores, and Angeles, ]]. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------X DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN_, P.J: Before this Court is the Petition for Review flied by petitioner within the extended period on April 25, 20251 assailing the Decision dated September 20, 20242 and Resolution dated March 25, 2025,3 promulgated by First Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 10545 entitled Air Drilling Associates Pte Ltd. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: "WHE REFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is DE NIE D for lack of merit. /'I 1 Rollo, C:T t\ E B o. 3127, pp. 6-18, with t\nncxcs. 2 Ibid., pp. 26-39. J Ibid. , pp. 22-24.

DECISIO'.J CT.\ EB NO. 3127 (CT.\ Case No. 10545) SO ORDERED." The dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner Air Drilling Associates Pte Ltd.'s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." THE PARTIES Petitioner Air Drilling Associates Pte Ltd. is a foreign company organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Singapore and was duly licensed by the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission to establish a branch office in the Philippines to pursue geothermal aerated drilling services and related opportunities therein. It is VAT-registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), under Tax Identification Number (TIN) 251-156- 024-00000.4 Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of the BIR vested under the appropriate laws with the authority to carry out the functions, duties, and responsibilities of said office, including inter alia, the power to decide disputed assessments, grant tax refunds, and issue tax credit certifiCates pursuant to the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and other tax laws, rules, and regulations. 5 THE FACTS The facts of the case as found by the Court in Division are as follows: 6 "Petitioner avers that, in the course of its business as contractor of aerated drilling services, it incurred input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods and services, importation of goods, and se1vices rendered by non-residents. During the 4'h quarter ofTY 2018, it entered into numerous transactions, which included, among others, rendering aerated drilling se1vices to Energy Development Corporation (EDC), where it accumulated unutilized creditable input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales amounting to P951,459.67 /V' r� 4 Dcci~ion, 2. ~ Decision, pp. 1-2. 6 Decision, pp. 2-4, cimtion~ omittcJ.

Page 3 of14 DECISIO'-: CT.\ EB NO. 3127 (CTc\ Case '-:o. 10545) On January 25, 2019, petitioner filed its Quarterly Vi\T Return for the 4'h Quarter ofTY 2018, and an Amended Quarterly VAT return for the same period on February 20, 2019 and August 22, 2019. On February 15, 2021, petitioner filed with the BIR a letter of even date, requesting for the refund of the full amount of 1"951,459.67, allegedly representing the unutilized input VAT credits attributable to its zero-rated sale of service to EDC for the 4'h quarter ofTY 2018. However, petitioner's administrative claim for a refund was denied through a letter dated April 27, 2021, issued by the BIR through Regional Director l\faridur V. Rosario, which petitioner received on May 6, 2021. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated its claim before the Court via the instant Petition for Review flied on June 4, 2021. In his Answer filed through registered mail on August 20, 2021, and received by the Court in September 29,2021, respondent interposed, among others, that petitioner's sales to EDC for the 4'h quarter of TY 2018 are not zero-rated; that petitioner failed to comply with the invoicing requirements under Section 113 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005; that petitioner's claim for tax credit/refund is not fully substantiated, thus, it must be denied; that there is a disparity between petitioner's claimed input taxes on domestic purchases of goods/services and the VAT sales invoices/official receipts; and that a claim for refund is strictly construed against the taxpayer for the same partakes the nature of tax exemption. The BIR Remrds of the case were subsequently transmitted to this Court on October 21, 2021. After the Pre-Trial Conference, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Fac[tjs and Issues, on May 23, 2022, based on which a Pre-Trial Order was issued on June 22, 2022. The trial then ensued, during which petitioner presented its witnesses, namely: (1) Ms. Rosebelle Liu, petitioner's Office Manager; and (2) Mr. Adan T. Delamide, the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA)/

Page 4 of14 DECISION CL\ EB NO. 3127 (CT.'> Case No. 10545) On November 14, 2022, petitioner f!led its Forma! Offer of Eviden(e, to which respondent flied his Comment (on Petitioner's Forma! Offer of Evident"e) on November 22, 2022. In the Resolution dated January 27, 2023, the Court admitted petitioner's offered exhibits, except for (1) Exhibit "P-90" for failure to state the description and Purpose thereof-, (2) Exhibits "P-6"' "P-6-1"' "P6-2"' "P-6-3"' "P- 6-4" "P-7" "P-7-1" ' "P-11" "P-12' "P-15-2" ' and "P-15-3" �or ' ' ' ' failure to submit the originals for comparison; and (3) Exhibits "P- 5" to "P-5-16" and "P-92 to "P-96", for failure to correspond with the description thereof. Petitioner f!led a Motion for Reconsideration on January 31, 2022, which the Court partially granted in the Resolution dated September 6, 2023, thereby admitting Exhibits "P-5" to "P-5-16", a"nPd-6""P' -"9P2-"6 -1" '"P"P-9-66-"2, "b' u"tPs-t6il-l3d"e' n"yPi-n6g-4E"x' h"iPb-i7t""'P"-P1-17"-,1f"o' r"Pfa-i1lu2r"e' to to submit the original for comparison. For his part, respondent offered the testimonies of Revenue Officers Roselyn M. Naron and J aeson Leigh A. Ulangkaya. After the presentation of his witnesses, respondent then filed his Formal Offer of Evidence on February 9, 2023, sans petitioner's comment thereon despite the opportunity given. Hence, in the Resolution dated June 14, 2023, the Court admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits. In the same Resolution, the parties were given thirty (30) days from notice to file their respective memoranda. \'Vith the filing of respondent's Memorandum through registered mail on October 5, 2023, and petitioner's Memorandum on October 10, 2023, the instant case was submitted for decision on October 18, 2023." On September 20, 2024, the Court in Division promulgated the assailed Decision. On October 8, 2024, petitioner ftled a "Motion for Reconsideration"7 seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated September 20, 2024 and praying that a new one be rendered ordering respondent to refund to petitioner the amount ofP951,459.67./ 7 Ibid., pp. 92-1--93-l-, with _\nncxcs.

DECISION CT"\ EB NO. 3127 (CT"\ Case No. 10545) On March 25, 2025, the Court in Division issued the assailed Resolution denying for lack of merit the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration." On April 16, 2025, petitioner filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review,"8 stating that petitioner has until April 18, 2025 within which to f!le the Petition for Review. Petitioner prays for an extension of fifteen (15) days from April 15, 2025, or until May 3, 2025, within which to flle the Petition for Review. On April 21, 2025, the Court issued a Minute Resolution9 granting petitioner's "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review." On April 25, 2025, petitioner f!led the instant Petition for Review. 10 On September 11, 2025, the Court En Bane issued a Minute Resolution11 ordering respondent to file Comment on the Petition for Review within ten (1 0) days from notice. On September 29, 2025, respondent flled a "Comment/Opposition (to the Petition for Review dated April23, 2025)." 12 On October 16, 2025, the Court En Bane issued a Minute Resolution 13 requiring petitioner to submit six additional copies of its "Comment/Opposition (to the Petition for Review dated April 23, 2025)," within five (5) days from notice. On October 24, 2025, petitioner flled its "Compliance."'" On December 10, 2025, the Court En Bane issued a Minute Resolution 15 noting the "Compliance," and the "Comment/Opposition (to the Petition for Review dated April 23, 2025)." In the same Minute Resolution, the Court En Bane ordered the instant case submitted for decision. THE ISSUE "Whether or not the Court in Division erred in holding that petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Section 112(A) of the NIRC of1997, as amended, which resultedin the denial ofthe Petition for ':,.V Review for Jack ofmerit. H Rollo, pp. 1-3. <)Ibid., p. 3. Ill Ibid., pp. 6-18, with . \nnexes. 11 Ibid., p. 47. t: Ibid., pp. 50-64. 13 ibid., p. 66. I~ Ibid., pp. 68-69. 10 Ibid., p. 156.

Page 6 of14 DECISION CT~\ EB :-.JO. 3127 (CT.\ Case No. 10545) THE ARGUMENTS Petitioner states that tax refunds are civil in nature, as such, it need only preponderance of evidence to claim its refund. Petitioner claims that the testimony of its witness Rosebelle Liu established its zero-rated sales to Energy Development Corporation (EDC), a renewable energy developer, for the 4'" quarter of taxable year (TY) 2018. Petitioner's witness is competent to testify as regards to the transactions entered into by petitioner with EDC during the 4'" quarter ofTY 2018. Petitioner maintains that the service agreement between petitioner and EDC for the 4'" quarter of taxable year 2018 is a contract which may be established by oral evidence. The testimony of Ms. Liu is material in providing the existence of a contract for the sale of aerated drilling services to EDC for the period 4'" quarter of taxable year 2018. Moreover, petitioner insists that its contract with EDC can be established by the conduct of the parties, which can be manifested through the issuance of Billing Invoices, Official Receipts issued by petitioner and the actual payments made by EDC to petitioner. Thus, petitioner satisfies the requirement that it is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, during the 4'" quarter of taxable year 2018. Conversely, respondent submits that Court in Division did not deny the admissibility of Ms. Liu's testimony through her Judicial Affidavit despite the objection of respondent, but, the Court in Division did not give probative value to the said testimony for failure of petitioner to establish that there was indeed Sales of Services to EDC for the 4'" quarter ofTY 2018. Respondent contends that there was no contract or service agreement that exists during the 4'" quarter of TY 2018, since petitioner's Contract for Aerated Fluids drilling works with EDC was in effect only until January 1, 2017. Thus, the Petition for Review must be denied for failure of petitioner to present sufficient evidence to prove its claim. THE RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC Timeliness ofthe Petition for Review On September 24, 2024, the petitioner received the Decision of the Court in Division. On October 8, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideratio~

DECISION CT.\ EB NO. 3127 (CT.\ Case No. 10545) of the said Decision. On March 25, 2025, the Court in Division issued the assailed Resolution denying petitioner's motion. Said Resolution was received by petitioner through its counsel on April 3, 2025. From receipt of the said Resolution on April 3, 2025, petitioner had until April18, 2025 within which to fJ.!e the Petition for Review before the Court En Bane. On April 16, 2025, petitioner filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review," praying that petitioner be given an additional period of fifteen (15) days from April15, 2025, or until May 3, 2025 within which to file this Petition for Review. The Motion was granted in the Minute Resolution dated April21, 2025. 16 The "Petition for Review" was flled on April25, 2025. Hence, this Petition for Review was timely flled. The Court shall now proceed to determine the merits of the Petition for Review. After a careful review of the arguments raised by the parties, the Court En Bane finds no reason to reverse the Decision and Resolution of the Court in Division. The records of the case show that petitioner merely rehashed the very same arguments in its previous pleadings all of which have been thoroughly discussed and passed upon by the Court in Division in the assailed Decision and similarly in the assailed Resolution. Nonetheless, the Coui't En Bane shall discuss the issues raised by the parties to stress the salient points in the assailed Decision and assailed Resolution. Petitioner was not able to establish that it was engaged in zero-rated sales or effectively zero-rated sales dudng the 4'~> quarter of2018. Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as last amended by Republic Act No. 10963,17 provides, in part, as follows: "SEC. 112. RefimdsorTaxCreditsoflnputTax. / t(, lbiJ., p. 5. ".IN .\C:'l' .IMJ�:NDINli SJ�:C:TIONS 5, 6, 24, 25, 27, 31. 32, 33, 34, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 74, 79, 84, 86, 90, 91, 97, 99,100, 101,106,107,108,109,110,112,114,116,127,128,129,145,148,149,151,155,171,174,175,177.178,179,180.181, 182,163,186,168,139,190,191,192,193,194,195,196, 197,232.236,237,249,254,264,269,.\Nll288;C:RI�:.I'I'lNC N F\V SEC:'l'ICJNS 51-.\, 148-.\, 150-.\, 150-ll, 237-, I, 264-.\, 264-ll, .IN D 265-. \; .\Nlll\1 �:1'1�:. \LINCi SECTIONS 35, 62, ,\Nil 89; .ILL UN[)L�J\ RJ�J'UHJ.IC: .ICI 8424, O'llll'.RWISJ�: KNOWN .IS '1'111'. N.l'l'HlN.IL IN'l'I'.RN.IL 1\J�:VJ;NUI: COlli�: Cli' 1997, .IS .I~IJ�:NDJ�Jl, ,\Nlli'OR Cl'l'l 11-:J\ I'URI'OSFS.

DECISI00: CL\ EB NO. 3127 (CT�I Case No. 10545) (1\) Zero-Rated or Elfective!J Zero-Rated Sales. - Any VAT- registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero- rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b) and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided,furthn; That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods of properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales: Provided,Jinal!J, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 1OS (B) (6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales. XXX XXX XXX (C) Period within which Refund ofInput Taxes shall be Made.- In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund for creditable input taxes within ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application ftled in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof: Provided, That should the Commissioner find that the grant of refund is not proper, the Commissioner must state in writing the legal and factual basis for the denial. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim, appeal the decision with the Court of Tax Appeals: Provided, however, That failure on the part of any official, agent, or employee of the BIR to act on the application within the ninety (90)-day period shall be punishable under Section 269 of this Code." The foregoing provision laid down certain requisites which the taxpayer- applicant must comply with to successfully obtain a credit/refund of input VAT. The said requisites are classified as follows: As to the timeliness of the filing of the administrative and judicial claims:#

DECISION CT~\ EB NO. 3127 (CT~\ Case No. 10545) 1. the refund claim is flied with the BIR within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made;18 2. in case of full or partial denial of the refund claim rendered within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application, the judicial claim shall be flied with this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision; \'Vith reference to the taxpayer's registration with the BIR: 3. the taxpayer is a VAT-registered person;19 In relation to the taxpayer's output VAT: 4. the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;20 5. for zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(1) and (2); 106(B); and 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rules and regulations;21 As regards the taxpayer's input VAT being refunded: 6. the input taxes are not transitional input taxes;22 7. the input taxes are due or paid;23 8. the input taxes claimed arc attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. However, where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume;24 and 9. the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters.~ IH l11tel Tedmology Philippino. l!!i:. !'.f. CoJJJilliJ.rioner ~flnlrmal Rn'l'lllll', c; .H. No. 166732, .\pril 27, 2007; San RoqHe PoJ/!er Co1pomlion vs. Co111miHioner ~(Intemal Rermtre, (/ .R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009; and AT&T CowmmitatioJIJ Serl!ire.o PbilippineJ, !111:, v.r. Commi.uiomrojlntema/Revnllle, c;.R. l\.'o. 182364, :\ug-ust 3, 2010. !'! l11tel TedJJlo!ogy Philippines, lfl(. /IS. Commis.r:irmer ofIntemal Revm11e, supra; San Roqm Po)/)er Cotpomtion l'S. Commi.rsioner iflntemal Rennm, supra; anJ AT&T Col!!llllfllimtionJ SemiteJ Pbilippil!eJ, lnt'., vJ. Co;wfliJJiomr qfIntemal RePe1111e, .wpm. 2o Ibid. 2! Ibid. 22 Ibid. 2> Ibid. 2~ INtel TubnoloJJ' P!Jilippmu, !111: m. CO;;;missioJ/er of Intemal Rn�m;te, surrn; anJ San Roqlf(' P01ver Corporation !!.r. Commi.�.rio11er q( lutemal Rewmte, mpm. 2 Intel Tedmology PbilippineJ, lnr: !'J. CommiJJioner qfIntemal Rn.Jmlle, mpnr, San Roqfl(' Pmver Cotporation l!J. Commi.uiomr q( Intemal �' Retle!lllf, mpra; anJ AT&T C.Om;;nmimtiom Se17Jire.f Pbilippine.r, Inc. !!.f. Co;tJmi.osiomr ofIntemal Renmre, .wpm.

Page 10 of14 DECISION CT.\ EB NO. 3127 (CT"\ Case No. 10545) It must be emphasized that in cases flied before this Court, which are litigated de novo, party-litigants must prove every minute aspect of their case26 Thus, it behooves petitioner to show compliance with each of the foregoing requisites. As a corollary, the absence of any of the said requisites is already a valid ground to deny the refund claim. Records show that petitioner is a VAT-registered person/entity, with TIN 251-156-024-000. 27 It was established in the assailed Decision that petitioner timely filed its administrative claim on February 15,2021, and judicial claim on June 4, 2021 28 However, an examination of the records reveals that petitioner was not able to prove the requirement that it must be engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. The Court En Bane agrees with the ruling of the Court in Division that petitioner was unable to present substantial evidence that it has zero-rated sales to EDC for the 4'h quarter of taxable year 2018. We quote with approval the pertinent portions of the assailed Decision:29 "The fourth requisite requires the taxpayer to engage in zero- rated or effectively zero-rated sales. To recall, petitioner claims in its letter application for a VAT refund, that during the period October 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, it has accumulated excess or unutilized input VAT in the amount of P951,459.67, arising from its local purchases of goods and services, purchases of services rendered by non-residents and importation of non-capital goods attributable to its zero-rated sale of service to the EDC, a Renewable Energy (RE) Developer, for the 4th quarter, of taxable year 2018. Thus, its sales of services to the latter are considered zero-rated under Section 108 (B)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended and Section 15 (G) of RA No. 9513. Petitioner, however, failed to offer any evidence to establish the kind of services it rendered to EDC in the 4th quarter of taxable/ 21' Edison {Bolaan) C.Ogmeration Cfnpomtion PJ'. Co!JJJFJiJJiomroflntemal Rere!lllf, elreq., c;.]( 1'\o:;_ 201665 aml201668, .\ugust 30, 2017; Commi.rsionuoflnienwl Rel'flllte r�.>. Philippim 1\'aliona/ Bank, (;.R. No. 180290, September 29, 2014; COmmis.riomr~(Intemal Rn�mm IJS. U11ited Salmge and ToJI)age (Pbi!s.), Inr., C .H. No. 197515,J uly 2. 2014; Di::;pn f!S. Co11rl ofTa:~.: Appeal.r, eta!, C.R. :\fo. 140944, .\pril 30, 2008~ Alias Con.wlidated j\,Jining and Dnrdopmml C01pomtion m. COIJ/misJioner of lnlema/ Rernme, C.R. No 1-1-5526, i\farch 1Ci. 2007; and CoJJJJJJissioller Q(Intemal Rrl'f'll!le /IS. Ma11ila Mining Co!pomtion, (I .H.. No. 153204, .-\ugust 31, 2005. 2' J �:xhibit "P-1 ". 2B Decision, pp. 9-10. 29 Decision, pp. 11-12.

DECISION CT"\ EB NO. 3127 (CT"\ Case "Jo. 10545) year 2018 that would qualify as zero-rated sales under Section 108 (B)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Other than the bare allegation that during the 4th quarter of taxable year 2018 it rendered aerated drilling services to EDC pursuant to a contract entered into by the parties to provide the latter aerated drilling services on its RE projects, no proof of any contract or service agreement in full force and effect during the subject period was adduced by petitioner. The Contract for Aerated Fluids Drilling Works dated Januaty 14, 2014 entered by and between petitioner and EDC, states, in part, as follows: '1.32 'Effective Date' means January 1, 2014. XXX XXX XXX 4. TEfu\1 Unless sooner terminated in accordance with this Contract, this Contract shall be effective from and after the Effective Date and shall continue to be in full force and effect for a period of thirty (sic) (36) months from the Effective Date or completion of the Geothermal Well(s) in progress at the end of the foregoing 36 month period, whichever is later (the 'Term'). (Emphases and underscoring added) Based on the foregoing clauses or stipulations, petitioner's Contractfor Aerated Fluids Drilling Works witb EDC was in fullforce and effect only untilJanuary 1, 2017, thirty-six (36) monthsfom January~ 2014, tbe Effective Date of tbe Contrad. Petitioner failed to adduce proof of the said Geothermal Well(s) completion date, if any, nor did it present any evidence of extension or amendment of the Term of the Contract. Clearly, the materiality and relevancy of the said Contract for Aerated Fluids Drilling Works is insufficient to prove entitlement to VAT zero-rating. Accordingly, the Court is unable to verify whether petitioner's local purchases of goods and services, purchases of services rendered by non-residents, and importation of non-capital goods are attributable to its zero-rated sale of service to EDC, an RE Developer, for the 4th quarter of taxable year 2018. Thus, petitioner's sales to EDC shall not be considered zero-rated sales. At this juncture, it is plain that petitioner failed to establish the jot11tb requisite to obtain a credit/refund of input Vi\T successfully. Such being the case, it becomes unnecessaty to address petitioner's compliance with the other requisites.;"

Page 12 of14 DECISION CT~\ EB 1'-iO. 3127 (CT~\ Case No. 10545) It must be emphasized that actions for tax refund or credit, as in the present case, are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as a derogation of sovereign authority and constmed strictissimijt1ris against the person or entity claiming the refund. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also stn.ctissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. Hence, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements." It is the taxpayer-claimant d1at has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund 30 Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, d1ey are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the refund. 31 Thus, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements.32 Strict adherence to the conditions prescribed by law is required of the taxpayer. 33 Inasmuch as the absence of any of the requirements is a valid basis for denial of refund claim, it is useless for this Court to discuss whether petitioner has complied with the od1er requirements for refund claim. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Court En Bane finds that petitioner has not fully complied with the requisites to successfully obtain a credit/refund of input VAT. Such being the case, the instant claim for refund must be denied. The findings of fact by the CTA in Division are not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to analyze the documents presented by the parties 34 In view of the foregoing discussions, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to reverse the assailed Decision and assailed Resolution. ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit./""' .1r1 Citibank j\r.A. t'J. Comt o_{Appeal,. and c:OIJJilli.rsioner ofInternal Rn�e!illf, C.ll.. No. 107434, Cktobcr 10, 1997. -' 1 ColiiJJJissiomr oflntemal Rn�mm 1'. S.C. Johnson and So!I, Int., eta!..(; .R. No. 1271 OS, June 25, 1999 . .>2 Eoslem Telet"Oilllll!lllimtio!IJ Philippines, !Ju: J!J. CoJJJJllissioneroflnti'rnal Rer�ei!He, G.R. No. 183531, !\[arch 25,2015, 1itingj.RA. c; Pbilippinf'.r, l!u: t'.f. C.7R, .R. :t\o. 171307,,\ugust 28, 2013. �'-'1 Steag State Pmwr, !11c. {Formerfy State Power Development C01pomtion) I'S. Co111111issio11er ~(Internal RetNmre, c;.J( No. 203282 ..fanuary J.-1.,2019. 3~ Rep11Uic ofthe Pbilippims, represented!!)' tbe Commis.Jioner ofln!emal Revmue v.r. Team (Phil.r.) Emt:g;' Corporation (formerf)' J\fira/11 (Pbils.) Emrgy Cotpomtion), C. R. No. 188016,.January 1-t, 2015, citing Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. C:ourt of .\ppca!s, C.R ~o. 122605, .\pri! 30, 2001.

Page 13 of 14 ~.~. ) - DECISION CT_\ EB NO. 3127 (CT\ Case No. 10545) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: JEANM ~ (hn.- f. ~- fajCVtdiJ MARIAN I'V\4. REYJ!S-FAJARDO Associate Justice LAN~~VID Associate Justice HENRY //~GELES Associate Justice

Page 14 of14 DECISION CT"\ EB l'iO. 3127 (CT.\ Case No. 10545) CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. t.. ~ 1'----- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice