REMA TIP TOP PHILIPPINES INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ENBANC REMA TIP TOP PHILIPPINES, CTA EB NO. 2623 INC. , (CTA Case No. 9836) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, I!_l_, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO , CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, fl. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, cPromulgated: Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DECISION BACORRO-VILLENA, L: Before the Court En Bane is the Petition for Review1 filed by petitioner Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. (petitioner), pursuant to Section 3(by~, Rule 8, in relation to Section 2(a)(1)3, Rule 4 of the Reviset:J Filed on I0 June 2022 via registered mail, Rollo, pp. 8-59. SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. (b) A party adversely affected by a decision or reso lution of a Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by fil ing before it a petition for review with in fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawfu l fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional period not exceeding fifteen days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. SEC. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court en bane. - The Court en bane shall exercise exclusive appellate j urisdiction to rev iew by appeal the fo llowing: (a) Dec is ions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over:

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION Page 2 of26 X------------------------------------------------ X Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals4 (RRCTA), assailing the Decision dated 25 May 20215 (assailed Decision) and Resolution dated 27 April 20226 (assailed Resolution) of the First Division? of this Court in CTA Case No. 9836, entitled Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue. PARTIES OF THE CASE Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, with office address at Unit 502, Richmonde Plaza Ortigas, San Miguel Ave. Brgy. San Antonio, Ortigas Center Pasig City.8 It is a registered taxpayer with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 43A, with Tax Identification Number (TIN) oo8-o42-655-ooo.9 It is engaged in the business of construction or construction-related works on commercial or industrial facilities.10 Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue {respondent/CIR), on the other hand, is the head of the BIR with the power or authority to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. FACTS OF THE CASE On 02 April 2018, petitioner filed its administrative claim for value-added tax (VAT) refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate (TCC) in the amount of 1'5,897.917�11, incurred during the four (4) quarters of taxable year (TY) 2016 (as evidenced by the Application fo~ (I) Cases arising from administrative agencies - Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs. Department of Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Agriculture[.] 4 A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA. Division Docket, Volume VI, pp. 3648-3692. 6 !d., pp. 3722-3733. 7 Penned by Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, with Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan concurring. Exhibit "P-2", Division Docket, Volume VI, p. 3442. 9 !d. 10 See primary purpose in the Amended Articles oflncorporation ofRema Tip Top (Philippines), Inc., id., p. 3446.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------------------------------x Tax Credits/Refunds" and Revised Checklist for Mandatory Requirements for Claims for VAT Refund12). On 12 April 2018, petitioner received respondent's letter dated 10 April 2018'3 denying its claim for VAT refund (Denial Letter). Aggrieved, petitioner filed its judicial appeal before this Court on 15 May 2018.'4 Within the extended period'S, on 13 July 2018, respondent filed his or her Answer'6 and alleged that: (1) petitioner failed to submit the documentary requirements for refund; and, (2) petitioner's Audited Financial Statements (AFS) did not show the unutilized input taxes that it applied for refund, hence its claim therefor was properly denied. The Pre-Trial Conference was then set on o8 November 2018.'7 Accordingly, the parties filed their Pre-Trial Briefs on os November 2018.'8 During the pre-trial proper'9, the hearing dates were set. Later, or on 11 April 2019, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order.20 On even date, upon petitioner's motion2', Ma. Theresa R. Dela Roca (Dela Roca) was commissioned as the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA).22 On 10 June 2019, she filed the initial ICPA Report23; however, she later on also filed an Amended ICPA Report on 24 July 2019 via registered mail,>4 During triaPs, petitioner presented its first witness, Jennilyn U. Gaanan (Gaanan) who testified, by way of her Judicial Affidavit>6, that: ' (1) she is petitioner's Chief Financial Officer; (2) petitioner filed a2::5' 11 Exhibit "P-5", id., Volume VI, p. 3477. 12 Exhibit "P-34", id., p. 3591. 13 Exhibit "P-70", id., p. 3592. 14 Petition for Review, id., Volume I, pp. 12-43. 15 See Resolution dated 02 July 2018, id., Volume V, p. 2299. 16 Id., pp. 2300-2305. 17 Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated 12 October 2018, id., pp. 2817-2818. 18 Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief, id., pp. 2821-2823; Petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief, id., pp. 2824-2856. 19 Conducted on 17 January 2019. See Order, id., pp. 2875-2876. 20 ld., pp. 3081-3094. 21 Motion to Commission an Independent Certified Public Accountant, id., pp. 2861-2865. 22 See Order dated II April 2019, id., pp. 3076-3077. 23 See Order dated 28 June 2019, id., Volume VI, p. 3129. 24 ld., pp. 3196-3351. 25 See Order dated 09 July 2019, id., pp. 3124-3125. 26 Exhibit "P-93", id., Volume V, pp. 2882-2905.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X administrative claim for VAT refund or issuance of TCC for its unutilized input VAT of Ps,897,917.11 for TY 2016; (3) it submitted various documentary requirements in relation to the request for refund; (4) respondent denied the claim for refund; and, (5) upon receipt of the denial letter, petitioner filed its judicial claim before this Court within the thirty (3o)-day prescriptive period. No cross-examination was conducted.27 Dela Roca assumed the witness stand next and testified, by way of her Amended Judicial Affidavit28, that: (1) she is the Court- commissioned ICPA; (2) she conducted a verification of petitioner's documents in relation to its claim for VAT refund or issuance of TCC; (3) after she examined the documents, she determined that petitioner validly substantiated the unutilized input VAT ofP4,698,694�19 (out of Ps,897,917.11 that it applied for); and, (4) the results of the verification and examination were summarized in the Amended ICPA Report and the softcopies of the documents were stored in a DVD filed before this Court. No cross-examination was conducted.29 After respondent manifested that he or she will no longer present any evidence, the Court directed the parties to file the necessary pleadings.3� On 25 October 2019, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits (FOE),3' Without respondent's comment3Z, the Court issued the Resolution dated 26 February 202033 (FOE Resolution) which denied some of the offered exhibits for petitioner's failure to present the originals for comparison. Later, or on 01 July 2020, petitioner also filed its Memorandum.34 , After respondent failed to file a memorandum, the case was submitte~ 27 See Minutes of Hearing dated 21 May 2019, id., Volume VI, pp. 3122-3123. 28 Exhibit "P-92", id., pp. 3355-3372. 29 See Minutes of Hearing dated 03 September 2019, id., pp. 3384-3388. 30 See Order dated 03 September 2019, id., pp. 3394-3395. 31 !d., pp. 3422-3439. 32 Per Records Verification dated 05 December 2019, id., p. 3597. 33 !d.� pp. 3603-3607. 34 !d., pp. 3609-3640.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION Page 5 of26 X------------------------------------------------X for decision.Js Thereafter, the First Division promulgated the now assailed Decision.36 The dispositive portion thereof reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Petition for Review filed on May 15, 2018 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. In the assailed Decision, the First Division determined that petitioner complied with the following requisites for a VAT refund: 1. It is a VAT-registered entity; 2. It timely filed the administrative and judicial claims pursuant to Section n2(A)37 ofthe NIRC of1997, as amended, and Section n38 of Republic Act (RA) No. 928239, respectively; 3� Out of P83,178,oos.10 (the declared zero-rated sales for TY 2016), petitioner Qas valid zero-rated sales in the amount of P62o449o305.68.( ) 35 See Resolution dated 22 July 2020, id., p. 3645. 36 Supra at note 5. 37 SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits ofInput Tax.- (A) Zero-Rated or Effectively 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)(l), (2) and (B) and Section 108 (B)(I) 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, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods or 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. 38 SEC. II. Who May Appeal; Mode ofAppeal; Effect ofAppeal.- Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. 39 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION Page 6 of26 x------------------------------------------------x In arriving at the said amount, the First Division disallowed: (a) P3,309,019.20, representing sales to alleged Non-Resident Foreign Corporations (NRFCs), for failure to submit two (2) crucial documents to prove the NRFCs' status; and, (b) P17,255,348�43, for failure to comply with the invoicing requirements under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005.4� 4� Petitioner had a substantiated valid input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales ofP291,262.93 only. Most of the !CPA's and the First Division's disallowances were due to petitioner's failure to comply with the invoicing requirements under the NIRC ofi997, as amended, and RR No. 16-2005. Despite the above findings, the First Division ruled that petitioner had no excess input VAT available for refund. In so ruling, it noted that petitioner had an output VAT liability ofP1,754,936.25 forTY 2016. After deducting the input VAT allocated to VATable sales (amounting to P51,209.66), petitioner still had a net output VAT payable of P1,703,726.59� Finding that petitioner's input VAT attributable to the zero-rated sales (P291,262.93) was significantly lower than the net output VAT payable (P1,703,726.59), the First Division determined that it still had a net output VAT still due in the amount of P1.412.463.66. The First Division also ruled that although petitioner had an input tax carried over from the previous period amounting to P4,249,849�48, it failed to submit supporting documents to substantiate the said carry- over. Hence, the First Division disregarded it in its computation and ultimately denied petitioner's claim for refund. Aggrieved, on 07 July 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration4' (MR). Despite due notice, respondent failed to file his or her comment theretoY Subsequently, the First Division promulgated the assailed Resolutiop43 denying petitioner's MR. The dispositive portion thereof reads:;3 4� Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of2005. 41 Filed via registered mail; Division Docket, Volume VI, pp. 3693-3709. 42 Per Records Verification dated 24 February 2022, id., p. 3716. 43 Supra at note 6.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. In the assailed Resolution, the First Division reiterated its earlier findings and sustained the denial of petitioner's claim for VAT refund or issuance ofTCC. Unsatisfied, on w June 202244 and within the extended period4S, petitioner filed before the Court En Bane the instant Petition for Review.46 Without respondent's comment,47 the case was submitted for decision on 04 October 2022.48 ISSUE The sole issue forwarded for the Court En Bane's resolution is- WHETHER THE FIRST DIVISION ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER REMA TIP TOP PHILIPPINES, INC.'S CLAIM FOR REFUND OR TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE (TCC) OF VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) IN THE AMOUNT OF P5,s97,917.u ATTRIBUTABLE TO ZERO-RATED SALES INCURRED IN THE FOUR (4) QUARTERS OF TAXABLE YEAR (TY) 2016. ARGUMENTS In support of the above, petitioner contends that it sufficiently established all the requisites for the VAT refund or issuance of TCC. According to it, the uncontroverted ICPA Report or the ICPA's findings confirmed the following: (1) petitioner is engaged in zero-rated sales; (2) the input taxes paid in TY 2016 were not applied against any output taxes; (3) the input taxes being claimed are attributed and allocated ... proportionately to zero-rated sales; and, (4) the payment for the sales~ 44 Filed via registered mail. 45 See Minute Resolution dated 26 May 2022, Rollo, p. 7. 46 Supra at note I. 47 Per Records Verification dated 05 September 2022, Rollo, p. 139. 48 See Resolution dated 04 October 2022, id., pp. 139-140.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION Page 8 ol26 x------------------------------------------------x the NRFCs are paid in foreign currency. Likewise, the ICPA traced, examined, and verified the supporting documents submitted to substantiate the input VAT refund claim. Petitioner also claims that during the Pre-Trial Conference, respondent stipulated that the input taxes applied for refund were paid in accordance with the prevailing laws, rules, and regulations. As the stipulation is a judicial admission, the fact of payment is beyond contest and no longer requires the presentation of evidence to prove the same. Likewise, petitioner points out that respondent failed to rebut with evidence the refund claim; thus, the supporting documents submitted in the administrative level are deemed complete. Contrary to the First Division's ruling, petitioner argues that the whole zero-rated sales of P83,178,oos.53 were duly substantiated. The relevant bank statements, payment advices, and official receipts (ORs) prove that the sales were made to NRFCs and that these comply with the invoicing requirements. As stated, the ICPA traced, examined, and confirmed the said documents. Petitioner further disputes the First Division's disallowance of the zero-rated sales and the purchases supported by documents with unreadable content. According to petitioner, it could not be faulted in relying on the First Division's admission of the documents (despite the fact they were allegedly unreadable). Had the First Division denied their admission outright for being blurred or unreadable, they could have presented clearer copies. Due to the First Division's action, it then claims that its right to due process was violated. Banking on the ICPA's tracing and verification procedures, petitioner requests that this Court reconsiders its ruling on the disallowed purchases and importations due to the supposed non- compliance with the invoicing requirement and the submission of mere photocopies ofthe supporting documents. Petitioner maintains that the ICPA already determined that these documents were duly compliant with the invoicing requirements and sufficient to prove the VAT refund; hence, the lattt!l''s findings deserve great weight in the resolution of the instant case.~

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION Page 9 of26 x------------------------------------------------x In the same vein, petitioner insists that the photocopies of the supporting documents should be accepted since duplicates are now treated as originals under the Revised Rules on Evidence.49 Lastly, petitioner prays that this Court evaluates anew the disallowance of the input tax carried over from the previous period. It explains that the Tax Code and the related issuances do not require the taxpayer-claimant to submit documents, ORs, and invoices to prove the input tax carry-over. RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC Before going into the merits of the case, the Court En Bane finds it propitious to first determine if it has jurisdiction over the present petition. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT PETITION. Section 18 of RA 112550, as amended by RA 92825\ provides that a party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of Court of Tax Appeal (CTA) on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a Petition for Review with the CTA En Bane. Corollarily, Section 3(b)5�, Rule 8 of the RRCTA5J states that the party affected should file the Petition for Review within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. This is without prejudice to an additional Is-day period from the expiration of the original period (within which to file the Petition for Review) that the Court may grant. Applying the foregoing, petitioner received the assailed Resolution of 27 April2o22 on u May 2o22.54 Counting 15 days therefrom, .- petitioner had until 26 May 2022 to file the Petition for Review befoz:;- 49 A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC. 50 AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS. 51 Supra at note 39. 52 Supra at note 2. 53 Supra at note 4. 54 See Notice of Resolution dated 29 April2022, Rollo, p. 109.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------------------------------x the Court En Bane. However, on 24 May 2022, petitioner filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review"ss to which the Court granted a non-extendible 15 days from 26 May 2022, or untilw June 2022, to file the petition.s6 The instant petition filed on 10 June 2022 has thus been timely filed and the Court En Bane successfully acquired jurisdiction over it. SALES TO NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (NRFCs) THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DISALLOWED. 1. DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TO NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (NRFCs). Petitioner maintains that it had duly substantiated the sales to NRFCs through the submission of bank statements and payment advice documents which prove that these sales were rendered to NRFCs and payments thereof were remitted in foreign currency. Petitioner's contention is wrong. In Chevron Holdings, Inc. (formerly Caltex Asia Limited) v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue57 (Chevron), the Supreme Court (SC) declared that to qualify for zero-rating, sales to NRFCs should be supported with at least two (2) documents, namely: (1) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Certificates of Non-Registration; and, (2) the Articles or Certificates of Foreign Incorporation, printed screenshots of the foreign SEC website showing the state/province/country where the entity was organized, or any similar document. The relevant parts of the SC Decision read: To qualify for VAT zero-rating, Section 108 (B) (2) requires the concurrence of four conditions: first, the services rendered should be , other than "processing, manufacturing or repacking ofgoods"; secondv 55 Id., pp. I-4. 56 See En Bane Minute Resolution dated 26 May 2022, id., p. 7. 57 G.R. No. 215159, 05 July 2022; Citations omitted, emphasis and italics in the original text and supplied.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------------------------------x the services are performed in the Philippines; third, the service- recipient is (a) a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines; or (b) a non-resident person not engaged in a business which is outside the Philippines when the services are performed; and, fourth, the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency inwardly remitted and accounted for in conformity with BSP rules and regulations. Anent the third requisite, the Court emphasized in Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd. that for sales to a non-resident foreign corporation to qualify for zero-rating, the following must be proved: "(1) that their client was established under the laws ofa country, not the Philippines or, simply, is not a domestic corporation; and (2) that it is not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. To be sure, there must be sufficient proof of both of these components: showing not only that the clients are foreign corporations, but also are not doing business in the Philippines." Therefore, the taxpayer-claimant must present, at the very least, both the SEC Certificates of Non-Registration - to prove that the affiliate is foreign; and the Articles or Certificates of Foreign Incorporation, printed screenshots of US SEC website showing the state/province/country where the entity was organized, or any similar document - to prove the fact of not engaging in trade or business in the Philippines at the time the sales are rendered. As ruled in the assailed Decision of 25 May 2021S8, petitioner failed to present the two (2) required documents to prove the NRFC status of Rema Tip Top Malaysia BHD PTY and Rema Tip Top Malaysia SDN BHD.59 Thus, the First Division properly disallowed the sales of 'P3,309,019.20 for failure to qualify as zero-rated sales. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF SALES DUE TO UNREADABLE OFFICIAL RECEIPTS (ORs). Petitioner claims further that the First Division violated its right to due process when it disallowed zero-rated sales that were allegedly supported with unreadable ORs despite admitting them in its FOE/ " Supra at note 5. 59 See Pages 16-17 of the Decision dated 25 May 2021, Rollo, pp. 79-80.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X Resolution of 26 February 2020.60 Petitioner avers that if only it denied outright the unreadable exhibits, then it could have immediately filed a clearer version thereof. We do not share petitioner's view. Petitioner was not denied due process because it was given the opportunity to present supporting documents for its claim for refund. Unfortunately, it opted to submit blurred and/or unreadable ORs which the First Division failed to appreciate in the resolution of the case. Also, to admit evidence and not to believe it subsequently are not contradictory to each other.6' Besides, courts are given wide latitude in ultimately assigning probative value to the exhibits offered and admitted. As correctly pointed out by the First Division in the assailed Resolution of 27 April202262, the "[a]dmissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value... [a]dmissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question ofwhether the admitted evidence proves an issue... [t]hus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence...". Incidentally, ifthe clearer copies were already available, petitioner could have easily attached the same to its MR to the assailed Resolution. It is noted that petitioner did not even mention if it had in its possession the originals or certified true copies of the subject exhibits. It is noted further that petitioner could not be expected to be unaware that what it offered as evidence are not originals, duplicates or certified true copies , of the originals. To Our mind, the First Division could not be accused of misleading petitioner of the exhibits that came from it in the first place~ 60 Supra at note 33. 61 Maria Z. Titong v. The Honorable Court ofAppeals (4'h Division), eta/., G.R. No. 111141, 06 March 1998. 62 Supra at note 6.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------------------------------x 3� DISALLOWANCE OF SALES AND PURCHASES DUE TO NON- COMPLIANCE WITH THE INVOICING REQUIREMENT. Petitioner vehemently insists that the First Division similarly erred in disregarding the ICPA's findings despite the tracing and verification procedure observed in substantiating the zero-rated sales and purchases related to the VAT refund. Section 3, Rule 13 of the RRCTA provides: SEC. 3� Findings ofindependent CPA.- The submission by the independent CPA of pre-marked documentary exhibits shall be subject to verification and comparison with the original documents, the availability ofwhich shall be the primary responsibility ofthe party possessing such documents and, secondarily, by the independent CPA. The findings and conclusions of the independent CPA may be challenged by the parties and shall not be conclusive upon the Court, which may, in whole or in part, adopt such findings and conclusions subject to verification.63 As stated, the ICPA's findings and conclusions are not conclusive to this Court. The ICPA Report is but a tool or guide to aid the Court in the resolution of the case. The merit or the probative value of such report is still subject to Our final determination; hence, the Court is free to adapt or disregard, completely or partially, the findings of the ICPA. It can even make its own audit and evaluation of the documents pertinent to the case presented during the trial in order to intelligently resolve the conflict brought before it.64 Contrary to petitioner's allegations, the First Division ably observed and determined that some of the ORs and invoices do not 3 comply with the invoicing requirements (as exhaustively enumerated in the assailed Decision). Therefore, there is no reason for Us to deviate from these findings. 63 Emphasis supplied. 64 First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corporation v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, C.T.A. EB No. 563, 0 I March 20 II.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X Moreover, petitioner's argument that the photocopies of the supporting documents should be accepted and be deemed as the originals in the substantiation of the input VAT is devoid of merit. It is to be noted that the FOE Resolution (which denied the admission of exhibits that are mere photocopies) was promulgated on 26 February 2020, or prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules on Evidence on m May 2020. Hence, at the time of their offer, the parties are required to submit the originals or certified true copies of the documentary evidence. In their absence, to proffer reasons why the photocopies may be admitted as secondary evidence. Although We are not unaware that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending at the time of their passage provided that it would not impair vested rights6s, such in this case, We still cannot admit the photocopies. Under Section 4(b)66, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a duplicate is defined as a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original. Hence, there is a need to determine that the duplicate is the same as the original. Here, however, petitioner failed to present the originals of the photocopies, thus, there is no way for Us to verify if the duplicates are indeed a counterpart thereof. Similarly, as pointed out in the assailed Resolution of 27 April 2022, under Section 2(b), Rule 13 of the RRCTA67, the ICPA has the duty g to compare the reproduced documents with the originals and to certify that those are faithful copies. However, as stated in the ICPA Report, petitioner's importation documents were mostly photocopies. 65 See Jaime Tan, Jr. v. Han. Court ofAppeals (Ninth Special Div.), eta/., G.R. No. 136368, 16 January 2002. 66 SEC. 4. Original ofDocument.- (b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. 67 SEC. 2. Duties ofindependent CPA. - ... (b) Reproduction of, and comparison of such reproduction with, and certification that the same are faithful copies of original documents, and pre-marking of documentary exhibits consisting of voluminous documents[.)

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X Lastly, petitioner's assertions that respondent did not present any evidence to counter its refund claim is of no moment. At the risk of being repetitive, We underscore that tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government. Accordingly, it is the claimant's burden to prove the factual basis of a claim for refund or tax credit.68 Unfortunately, petitioner herein failed to do so. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) REFUND. While the Court En Bane agrees with the First Division's actions and disquisitions on matters discussed above and as appearing in the assailed Decision69 and Resolution7�, We are, however, constrained to nonetheless rule that petitioner is entitled to a refund of its excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to valid zero-rated sales. In the assailed Decision7' promulgated on 25 May 2021, the First Division held that petitioner had a net output VAT due ofP1,412,463.66: Sixth Requisite: Petitioner has no excess input VAT available for refund Having determined that petitioner had valid input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales, the Court shall now determine whether the same was not applied against its output VAT liability. After deducting the input tax attributable to VATable sales in the amount ofPs1,209.66 from its output VAT liability ofP1,754,936.25 from the said sales, petitioner still has a net output VAT payable of PI,7o3,726�59� as computed below: Period Output VAT 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter P428.487.15 3rd Quarter 377.688-41 r 556,167.oo Sj!_ 68 Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 183531,25 March 2015. 69 Supra at note 5. 70 Supra at note 6. 71 Supra at note 5; Emphasis in the original text.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X 4th Quarter 392.593�69 Total 1"1,754�936�25 Output VAT per Returns 1"1, 754�936.25 Less: Input VAT Allocated to Total VATable Sales 51,209.66 Net Output VAT Payable P1,703,726.59 Since petitioner's input VAT attributable to VATable sales is not enough to cover its output VAT liability, the valid input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales shall be utilized against the remaining output VAT liability of 1"1,703,726.59� However, the input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales of 1"291,262.93 is way lower than the net output VAT payable of 1"1,703,726.59� Consequently, petitioner still has net output VAT due ofPt,412,463.66, computed as follows: Net Output VAT Payable 1"1, 703,726.59 Less: Input VAT Allocated to 291,262.93 Zero rated Sales Net Output VAT Still Due 1"1,412,463.66 While the Court notes that petitioner's 1st Quarterly VAT Return forTY 2016 reflected the amount of 1"4,249,849�48 as "Input Tax Carried Over from Previous Period", petitioner failed to submit documents, official receipts and invoices to support the input tax carry-over of1"4,249,849-48. Hence, petitioner's input tax carried over from previous period cannot be validly applied against petitioner's net output VAT due pursuant to Section no(A) in relation to Section no(B) of the NIRC ofl997, as amended. However, after about a year from the promulgation of the assailed Decision, specifically on os July 2022, the SC promulgated Chevron and shed light on the utilization of input tax carried over from the previous period and provided guidelines on the computation of the refundable unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales when the taxpayer- claimant is engaged in mixed transactions. In Chevron, petitioner therein is engaged in the sale of services to affiliates locally and abroad, thus it has VATable sales and zero-rated sales. It allocated proportionately the total input tax incurred for both sales for TY 2oo6 between the VATable sales and zero-rated sales. The ~ resulting input tax attributable to zero-rated sales in the amount ~

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X I"J6,8o2,956.63 was not charged against any output tax since petitioner used its input tax carried forward from the previous period to cover the output tax. Hence, the whole amount of input tax attributable to zero- rated sales forTY 2oo6 was applied for VAT refund or issuance ofTCC. For reference, We quote the relevant part in the SC Decision where it was illustrated how it arrived at the amount of input VAT that was applied for refund:72 The input taxes were allocated proportionately, as follows: VAT-able 1st Quarter zndQuarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter sales 4.687,290� 75 35.386,665.52 _308.477,292.]1 237,011, 771�09 28,405.325�59 41,180,817.13 Zero-rated 3'3�'64.583.06 272,400,438.61 271,0Q'i,'il5.06 sales 299�500,840.65_ 4'i9.971,366.01 Total 98.5o% 87.01% 501,152,18}.16 Zero-rated 'i�471.1'i2�11 6,843.948�'51 sales/Total 90.52% 2'�78% sales 5>391,252.04 5�954�9'9�62 7�'44,010.')7 20,6Q0,79I.66 Multiply by 6,466,776.47 18,99o,oo8.5o input tax Input tax from zero- rated sales [The total input tax from zero-rated sales off'36,8o2,956.63 was applied for refund.] The input taxes attributable to zero-rated sales were not credited against output taxes because of the substantial amounts of input taxes carried forward from the previous quarters.... To recall, the CTA En Bane's Decision in Chevron that was elevated to the SC partially granted the VAT refund in the amount ofPis,o8s.24. In arriving at the said figure, the En Bane ruled that the substantiated input tax ofP9,o8I,81S.oo shall be first deducted from the output tax (for the period of claim) since petitioner therein cannot apply the input tax carried over ofPs6,s64,o96.77 against the output tax because it failed to present VAT invoices or receipts to prove its existence. Thereafter, the resultant amount was multiplied with the percentage of the valid zero- rated sales over the dec�lared zero-rated sales to determine the amount available for refund.lJ 72 Supra at note 57; Citation omitted and emphasis supplied.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------X Dissatisfied with the CTA En Bane's Decision, petitioner went to SC which eventually ruled that under Section 11273 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, a taxpayer claiming for refund of its input tax attributable to zero-rated sales has the option to: (1) charge it against the output tax from regular 12% VATable sales, and any unutilized or excess input tax may be claimed for refund; or, (2) claim it for refund or tax credit in its entirety. Since the petitioner in Chevron availed of the second option, the SC declared that this Court erred in deducting the output tax from the unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, let alone disallow the application of the input tax carried over against the output tax. Accordingly, the SC recomputed the refundable amount by getting the percentage ofthe valid zero-rated sales over the total reported sales and multiplying it with the substantiated input tax of P9,o81,815.oo, thus granted petitioner's claim for a refund in the amount ofP1,140,J81.22, as computed below: ... First Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter 79,131,661.58 Valid zero-rated s. 762,0ll. 70 4.669.743-23 66,og1,331.71 ')01,1')2,181.16 sales 272,400,438.61 2<)<),')00,840.6') Divided by: Total 111,164,')83.06 4,2<J4,26q.68 reported sales 1,6')0,')01.6') 1,86o,J8').')1 678,062.88 Multiplied by: 1,276,6<;6.14 28,294-48 410,<;14.26 Valid input tax 23�48q.<;q P1,140,J81.22 not directly attributable to any activity Input tax attributable to zero-rated sales TOTAL We find the factual circumstances of this case to be similar to Chevron for the reasons essayed below. First, the claimant in Chevron allocated proportionately its input VAT between the VATable sales and the zero-rated -sales prior to filing its application for VAT refund or issuance ofTCC.~ 73 Supra at note 37.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X Here, petitioner already separated the input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales by reporting it under Line 2.1N/O (Others) and reflecting the input VAT attributable thereto as zero (o) amount in the quarterly VAT returns74 to exclude them in the computation of the tax still payable or overpayment (such in the case of petitioner). We quote the table presented in the assailed Decision:75 ... Gross Amount of 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total Purchases and Importations Domestic Purchases of k;oods Other Capital k;oods (Line 21E) Pn4,'i74.8'i P98,"6.47 P87,126.o2 P287,282.26 P<;87,11o.6o Importation of Goods Pther than Capital k;oods (Line 21G) 7'iO,"l.l6 1,U1,2'i6.87 19'i,878.16 946,617.16 1,42'i,083�35 118,')12.62 484.141.61 892.450-48 1,497,6H.')1 3,192,918.24 Domestic Purchase of ~ervices (Line 211) [Others (Line 21N) Io,o6,,6o4.<;.1 1<,471,118.01 6,7oq,88o.u 17,000,706.':12 4Q,4Q,10Q.21 otal Current Purchases/Importations Pn,1<;8,021.17 P17,178,87'i�OO P8,o8s.51'i�oo P19,732,217.2'i P')6.3'i4,6')0.42 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rdQuarter 4th Quarter Total Input VAT allocated P1,151,o78.34 P1,82o,236.69 P745,8H.57 P1,982,837�34 h.699�963�94 o Zero-rated Sales 44-794-21 16,'517-47 ')Q,174-07 '57,247-42 1Q7,Q'i1.17 Input VAT Directly Attributable to P1,195,872.54 P1,856,774�16 P8o5,185.64 P2,o4o,o84.76 Ps,8Q7,Q17.n Zero-rated Sales TotallnputVAT Allocated and Directly Attributable to Zero-rated Sales [The total input tax from zero-rated sales ofl's,897,917.n was applied for refund.] Second, in Chevron, after the claimant (petitioner therein) determined the input tax proportionately allocated to zero-rated sales, it did not credit the said input tax against its output tax. Instead, it (3 applied the ineut tax carried over from the previous quarters against the output tax. 74 Exhibits "P-8", "P-9", "P-10", and "P-11", Division Docket, Volume VI, pp. 3483-3490. 75 Emphasis supplied.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------------------------------x In the same regard, as mentioned above, since petitioner herein reflected "o" amounts of input tax attributable to zero-rated sales, the said input tax was not charged against its output tax. As a matter of choice, petitioner used the input tax carried over of 1"4,249,849�48, in addition to the input tax attributable to VATable sales, to charge against its output tax. Clearly, both claimants in Chevron and in herein case applied the entirety of the input tax attributable to zero-rated sales for refund. With the striking semblance especially on the option availed by the taxpayer-claimants, We find no other proper recourse but to apply the principle and the manner of computation laid down in Chevron. To echo Chevron76, it is not for the CTA to determine and rule in a judicial claim for refund under Section n2(A)77 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, that the taxpayer had insufficient or unsubstantiated input VAT to cover or pay its output VAT and, for this reason, it is not proper to charge the taxpayer's substantiated or valid input VAT against its output VAT first and use the resultant amount as basis for computing the allowable amount for refund, viz: Fourth, that the taxpayer failed to prove that it had sufficient creditable input taxes to cover or "pay" its output tax liability in a given period, hence, there is no refundable "excess" input tax, which is an issue distinct, separate, and independent from a claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales. For one, the taxpayer-claimant is not asking to refund the "excess" creditable input taxes from the output tax. To be sure, the "excess" input tax may only be carried over to the succeeding periods and cannot be refunded. But, on the other hand, the taxpayer is asking to refund the unutilized or unused input tax from zero- rated sales. Next, the substantiation of input taxes that can be credited against the output tax is an issue relevant to the assessment for potential deficiency output VAT liability. In turn, it is not for the CTA t:? and the Court to determine and rule in a judicial claim for refund under Section n2(A) of the Tax Code that the taxpayer had insufficient ' or unsubstantiated input taxes to cover its output tax liability. This 76 Supra at note 57; Citations omitted, emphasis in the original text and supplied. 77 Supra at note 37.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------------------------------x for the BIR to determine in an administrative proceeding for assessment of deficiency taxes. All told, it was erroneous for the CTA to charge the validated and substantiated input taxes against Chevron Holdings' output taxes first and use the resultant amount as the basis for computing the allowable amount for refund. The CTA also erred in requiring Chevron Holdings to substantiate its excess input tax carried over from the previous quarter as it is not a requirement for entitlement to a refund of unused or unutilized input VAT from zero-rated sales. We reiterate that although the burden of proof to establish entitlement to a refund is on the taxpayer-claimant, the Court has consistently held that once the minimum statutory requirements have been complied with, the claimant should be considered to have successfully discharged their burden to prove its entitlement to the refund. After the claimant has successfully established a prima facie right to the refund by complying with the requirements laid down by law, the burden is shifted to the opposing party, i.e., the BIR, to disprove such claim. Otherwise, we would unduly burden the taxpayer-claimant with additional requirements which have no statutory nor jurisprudential basis. In the present case, Chevron Holdings sufficiently proved compliance with all the requisites for entitlement to a refund or credit of unutilized input tax allocable to zero-rated sales under Section n2(A) of the Tax Code. Clearly from the aforestated, when a taxpayer-claimant has excess input VAT carried over from previous period, it need not substantiate the same for purposes of establishing its entitlement to a refund of excess input VAT from zero-rated sales. The declared excess input tax carried over from previous period is presumed correct and is used to cover or pay for the output VAT due in the period of claim. Applying the same in the case at bar, since petitioner had an input VAT carried over from previous period ofP4,249,849�4878, it sufficiently ' covered the output tax per returns of P1,754,936.2579 and resulted to a p 78 Input VAT Carried Over from Previous Period per I" Quarter VAT Return forTY 2016 (Line Item 20A), Exhibit "P-11", Division Docket, Volume VI, pp. 3489-3490. 79 As quoted from the assailed Decision, id., p. 3690. ... Period Output VAT Ist Quarter P428,487.15 2nd Quarter 377,688.41

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X overpayment. Although We have established this fact, it is important to note that this will not affect the computation of the refundable amount since We have determined that petitioner did not charge its input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales against its output tax and opted to claim it in its entirety. In other words, petitioner availed of the second option under the Tax Code. With the foregoing, We also adopt the computation in Chevron to determine the input tax available for refund. Thus, the substantiated input tax not attributable to any activity8� of f'342.472.598' shall be proportioned to the valid zero-rated sales over the total declared sal~sj to arrive at the refundable amount off'218,677.62, computed in this wist7 3rd Quarter 556,167.00 4th Quarter 392,593.69 Pl,754,936.25 Total 80 As quoted from the assailed Decision, id., pp. 3669-3670 Upon verification by the Court, it is found that petitioner failed to prove that certain domestic purchases and importation of goods other than capital goods, and domestic purchase of services in the total amount of PI ,649,609.75 were directly attributable to zero-rated sales made during the four quarters of TY 20 16. Thus, the Court is constrained to consider the whole amount of P56,354,650.42 as petitioner's total domestic purchases and importation of goods other than capital goods, and domestic purchase of services, subject to proportional allocation between VATable, VAT-exempt and VAT zero-rated sales pursuant to Section 112 (A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. (Emphasis supplied) 81 As quoted from the assailed Decision, id., p. 3689. In view of the foregoing disallowances, the total valid input taxes of petitioner subject for allocation is P342,472.59, as shown below: Total Input VAT lst Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd 4th Quarter Total Pl.338,962. 78 P2,085.465.00 Quarter P2,367,866.07 P6, 762,558.05 Less: Disallowance P970,264.20 per ICPA 758,196.27 Exception 338,285.47 150.499.55 189,997.23 79,414.02 5,133,023.91 Disallowance 1,046,113.85 1.772.464. 73 560,337.87 I,754, I07.46 871,337.87 per Court's (45,436.54) 162.500.72 219,929.10 534,344.59 528,865.28 Further Verification P342,472.59 ' Valid Common Input Tax for Allocation Less: Input Tax on Unaccounted Purchases Net Valid Common Input Tax for Allocation

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------------------------------x Total Valid Zero-Rated Sales P62.449>305.6882 97,802,)07.14 Divided by Reported Total Declared Sales per 342.472-59 Quarterly VAT Returns forTY 2016 p 218,677.62 Multiplied by Total Valid Input VAT not directly attributable to any activity83 Valid Input VAT Allocated to Total Valid Zero- Rated Sales The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are established), as ordained in Article 884 of the Civil Code, enjoins adherence by this Court to doctrinal rules established by the SC in its final decisions, such as the recent pronouncement in Chevron regarding the proper formula for computing the refundable input tax.8s This principle is based on the notion that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be considered settled and closed to further argument.86 The High Court's interpretation of a statute becomes part of the law as of the date it was originally passed because such interpretation simply establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carries into effect.87 Having thus established that there is a refundable excess input VAT attributable to valid zero-rated sales in the amount of'P218,677-62 , following the procedure laid down in Chevron and since such amount is; 82 As quoted from the assailed Decision, id., p. 3667 In sum, out of the total reported zero-rated sales of P83, 178,005.10, only the amount of P62,449,305.68 shall be considered as valid zero-rated sales for the four quarters of TY 2016, detailed as follows: Zero-rated lst Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total Sales ?22,759.452.94 ?19,064,944.08 P20, 776.007.25 ?20,577,600.83 P83,178,005.10 Less: 7.540,924.62 2,846,064. 78 1,023,663.08 9.153.716.15 20,564.368.63 Disallowances 0.21 0.33 164.330.25 164,330.79 Excess Claims - Total Valid P15,218,528.11 P16,218,878.97 Pt9,588,013.92 ?62,449,305.68 Zero-rated Pll,423,884.68 Sales 83 Supra at note 80. 84 ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. " See Benjamin G. Ting v. Carmen M. Velez-Ting, G.R. No. 166562, 31 March 2009. 86 Id. 87 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Abigail R. Razon, et a/., G.R. No. 179408, 05 March 2014.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X well within the input VAT claim of Ps,897,917.11 that remained unutilized until the same was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in respondent's first (I'') Quarterly VAT Return for FY 201788, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance of a TCC in the said amount. Verily, when a claim for refund has a clear legal basis and is sufficiently supported by evidence, as in the present case, the Court shall not hesitate to grant the refund.89 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review filed by petitioner Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. on 10 June 2022 is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 25 May 2021 and assailed Resolution dated 27 April 2022, of the First Division in CTA Case No. 9836 entitled Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, are MODIFIED insofar as the amount of refundable input tax is concerned. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue or any person duly acting on his or her behalf is ORDERED to refund, or in the alternative, issue a tax credit certificate in favor of petitioner in the total amount of P218,677.62, representing unutilized input tax attributable to zero-rated sales for the period of 01 January to 31 December 2016. SO ORDERED. \ JEANMA ociate Justice 88 Exhibits "P-4645" and "P-4645-A", DVD. 89 San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, 25 November 2009; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 180043, 14 July 2009.

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------------------------------------------ X WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~. ~ --vL_, MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~~-~-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice stice ~~f~�~=Cj�~ MARIAN Iffl. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice /r;Ju,ndmt:L LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice ~V�G\. .F�RRE LvnES CO Assoct�ate Justice ON LEAVE HENRYS. ANGELES Associate Justice

CTA EB NO. 2623 (CTA Case No. 9836) Rema Tip Top Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------------------------------x 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 ofthe opinion of the Court. ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice