Takenaka Corporation – Philippine Branch v. CIR

Facts:

Respondent Takenaka, as a subcontractor, entered into an On-Shore Construction Contract with Philippine Air Terminal Co., Inc. (PIATCO) for the purpose of constructing the Ninoy Aquino Terminal III (NAIA-IPT3).

BIR issued VAT Ruling No. 011-03 which states that the sales of goods and services rendered by respondent Takenaka to PIATCO are subject to zero-percent (0%) VAT and requires no prior approval for zero rating. Takenaka filed its claim for tax refund but BIR failed to act on Takenaka’s claim. Thus, Takenaka filed a Petition for Review.

Former First Division rendered a Decision partly granted the Petition for Review and ordering herein petitioner CIR to refund to respondent Takenaka a reduced amount. Takenaka filed for an MR and was granted. CIR also filed an MR but was denied.

Issue:

Whether or not the sales invoices presented by the petitioner were sufficient as evidence to prove its zero-rated sale of services to PIATCO, thereby entitling it to claim the refund of its excess input VAT for taxable year 2002.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Held:

No. The issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may at any time either be raised by the parties or considered by the Court motu proprio. As such, the jurisdiction of the CTA over the appeal could still be determined by this Court despite its not being raised as an issue by the parties.

The mere fact that petitioner's application for zero-rating has been approved by the CIR does not justify the grant of a refund or tax credit. The taxpayer claiming the refund must further comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements mandated by the NIRC, as well as by revenue regulations implementing them.