GR 145526; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145526 . March 16, 2007.
Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation filed administrative claims with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for refund or tax credit of excess input value-added tax (VAT) for several quarters in 1992. It claimed the input taxes were attributable to its zero-rated sales of gold to the Central Bank and sales to specific corporations. Due to the BIR’s inaction and the impending prescriptive period, Atlas filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
The CTA denied the claims, citing prescription and insufficiency of evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the finding on prescription but affirmed the denial on evidentiary grounds. It held that Atlas failed to submit the required VAT invoices or receipts to substantiate its claim. Atlas then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of Atlas’s claim for tax credit/refund due to its failure to submit the required VAT invoices or receipts as evidence.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. The Court reiterated that a taxpayer claiming a tax refund or credit bears the burden of proof and must comply with both substantive and procedural requirements. While Atlas established the zero-rated nature of its sales, it failed to provide the necessary evidentiary support for the claimed input taxes.
The Court rejected Atlas’s argument that non-compliance with the documentary requirements of Revenue Regulations No. 3-88 was irrelevant to its judicial claim. A judicial claim before the CTA is an appeal from the administrative claim; thus, the claimant must demonstrate compliance with all administrative requirements to justify the refund. Furthermore, the Court held that the summary and certification from an independent CPA, as required by CTA Circular No. 1-95, do not substitute for the submission of the actual VAT invoices or receipts. These documents are the primary evidence to prove payment of input VAT. Atlas’s failure to present them was fatal to its claim, as affirmed in the similar case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation. Therefore, without the requisite evidence, Atlas’s claim was correctly denied.