NIPPON EXPRESS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

1111111111111111111111 1111111111 11111 11111111111111 111111 11111111111111111111111 CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 22-000472-0077 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10993 NIPPON EXPRESS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. CLARISSA J. VIRTUDES-BABARAN Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City EMMANUEL C. ALCANTARA AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES Sth Floor, SGV I Building 6760 Ayala Avenue 1226 Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on August 13, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, August 24, 2026. A tty~ Ex~~j7v'fc~

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION NIPPON EXPRESS CTA CASE NO. 10993 PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Members: Petitioner, BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. -versus- Promulgated: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, .., Respondent. AUG 13 ~ 0°fb X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _... ~- - - - - - - - - - - -X RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: This resolves Motion for respondent's Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 30 April 2026) [Motion}, filed on May 20, 2026, with petitioner's Comment and Opposition (to Respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated 13 May 2026), filed on July 13, 2026. Respondent seeks the partial reconsideration of the Court's Decision promulgated on April 30, 2026 (assailed Decision), the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review filed by petitioner Nippon Express Philippines Corporation is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ORDERED TO REFUND the amount of P6,631,071.24, representing petitioner's excess and unutilized input Value- Added Tax for the 2nd and 3rd Quarters of taxable year 2020 which is attributable to its zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales for the same period. SO ORDERED.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10993 Nippon Express Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of4 x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Respondent anchors the instant Motion on the sole ground that: WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO REFUND IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF P6,63 1,071. 24 REPRESENTING ALLEGED EXCESS AND UNUTILIZED INPUT VAT ALLEGEDLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ZERO-RATED SALES FOR THE 2ND AND 3RD QUARTERS OF TAXABLE YEAR 2020. Respondent avers that, in the assailed Decision, the Court ruled that petitioner had sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund in the aggregate amount ofP6,631 ,071.24 , representing alleged excess and unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) attributable to zero-rated sales for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of taxable year 2020. However, respondent claims that the Court should have dismissed the Petition for Review for failure of petitioner to substantiate its administrative claim for refund. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 1 (Total Gas), respondent submits that since a decision had already been rendered at the administrative level, the jurisdiction of the Court shifts from a trial court to an appellate tribunal; hence , the Court should confine itself to whether the findings of respondent are consistent with law. Respondent adds that since a decision has been rendered in this case denying petitioner's administrative claim for refund for failure to substantiate the same, petitioner cannot submit documents it did not submit at the administrative level. Moreso , the Court is confined to a more limited issue of whether the denial was proper given the evidence submitted at the administrative level. Lastly, even if the Court ignored the ruling in Total Gas, respondent submits that petitioner's judicial claim for refund would still be unmeritorious. According to respondent, for petitioner to have a valid claim for refund of unutilized input VAT for the subject period, compliance with certain legal requisites must be proven. For respondent, petitioner failed on G.R. No. 207112, December 8, 2016 [Per J. Mendoza, En Bane].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10993 Nippon Express Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x this part, particularly, with regard to the existence of zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. In rejecting respondent's Motion, petitioner submits that the Court correctly partially granted its claim for refund. According to petitioner, respondent's premise that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) must resolve the case based only on what was submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) during the administrative proceeding is contrary to the nature of CTA litigation. For petitioner, the CTA is a court of record and cases before it are litigated de novo. In refund cases, the CTA's adjudication is based on the evidence formally offered and admitted during trial, not merely on what was attached to the administrative claim. Moreover, the Supreme Court has expressly recognized that since CTA cases are litigated de novo, "party litigants should prove every minute aspect of their case," and documents must be formally offered before the CTA to have evidentiary value. 2 Respondent's Motion lacks merit. It must be emphasized that Section 8 of Republic Act No. 1125, 3 as amended , declares this Court as a "court of record." As such, it is required to conduct a trial de novo where the parties must present their evidence anew in order for the Court to take such evidence into consideration.4 The appealing party must establish that it is entitled to the refund being sought under substantive law. Correspondingly, the Court is authorized to conduct trial de novo, and consistent with this principle, parties who come to court are required to prove every aspect of their case if they want the Court to take such evidence into consideration. s Moreover, the power of the Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction does not preclude it from taking into account evidence that was not presented in the administrative claim before the BIR.6 The question of whether the evidence submitted Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development C01poration v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. 145526, March 16,2007 [Per J. Corona, First Division]. An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 153204, August 31 , 2005 [Per J. Carpio- Morales, Third Division]. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 206079-80 & 206309, January 17, 20 18 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 180290, September 29, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. 6 Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 206079-80 & 206309, January 17, 2018 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10993 Nippon Express Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x . by a party is sufficient to warrant the granting of its prayer lies within the sound discretion and judgment of the Court. As cases filed before this Court are litigated de novo, the Court, is not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence, thus, is not precluded from considering evidence not presented at the administrative level for the paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth.7 Moreover, respondent's argument is unsupported by specifics. While insisting that petitioner improperly relied on documents not submitted during the administrative proceedings, respondent failed to identify the particular documents allegedly omitted at the administrative level but subsequently presented before the Court. Such generalized assertions cannot prevail over the evidence formally admitted and evaluated during trial. In fine, after a careful consideration of respondent's arguments, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Decision. The evidence on record sufficiently establishes petitioner's entitlement to a refund, albeit only in the reduced amount of P6,631,071.24. As thoroughly discussed in the assailed Decision, petitioner successfully satisfied the applicable legal and evidentiary requirements for the grant of its claim to that extent. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 30 April 2026) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LANE~~D Associate Justice !CONCUR: - . BACORRO-VILLENA iate Justice Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Univation Motor Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 23158 1, April I0, 2019 [Per J. Reyes, Jr., J.].