G.R. No. 218057 , January 18, 2021
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Petitioner, vs. Philex Mining Corporation, Respondent.

FACTS

Philex Mining Corporation (Philex), a domestic corporation engaged in mining, filed its original Quarterly VAT Return for the fourth quarter of 2009 on January 21, 2010. On September 13, 2011, it filed an amended Quarterly VAT Return for total zero-rated sales, importation of goods, and purchases of services. Pursuant to Revenue Regulations, Philex filed an administrative claim for refund/tax credit with the One Stop Shop Center on September 28, 2011. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) failed to act on the claim. Consequently, Philex filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on January 27, 2012. The CTA Second Division partially granted the petition, ordering a refund of P18,610,568.32 representing unutilized and excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the fourth quarter of 2009. The CTA En Banc affirmed this decision. The CIR elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CTA En Banc erred in affirming the CTA Second Division’s Decision which ruled that Philex is entitled to a tax refund in the amount of P18,610,568.32, representing its unutilized and excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the fourth quarter of 2009.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Petition, affirming the CTA En Banc’s decision. The Court held that:
1. Timeliness of Claim: Philex’s judicial claim was seasonably filed. The 120-day period for the CIR to act on the administrative claim commenced upon Philex’s submission of complete documents on September 28, 2011. The CIR did not notify Philex of any deficiency. Upon the expiration of the 120-day period without action, Philex had 30 days to appeal to the CTA, which it did by filing on January 27, 2012 (within the 30-day period from the expiration of the 120 days).
2. Substantiation of Claim: The Court declined to revisit the factual findings of the CTA regarding the substantiation of Philex’s claim, as it is not a trier of facts. The CTA’s findings, including its acceptance of provisional invoices and bills of lading to prove sales generated within the claim period despite some financial invoices being dated outside the period, were upheld.
3. Required Documents: The submission of subsidiary sales and purchase journals is not an indispensable requirement for a VAT refund claim under Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code. The CTA did not err in not requiring them.
Therefore, the CTA En Banc correctly affirmed the grant of the refund to Philex.