Re: BIR Letter of Authority to Examine Supreme Court Books of Account and Other Accounting Records

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8159. August 12, 2013.] M+W PHILIPPINES, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS , J p : This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, 1 filed on May 22, 2013, with respondent's Comment/Opposition, filed by registered mail on July 1, 2013. Petitioner seeks the reversal of this Court's Decision 2 dated April 30, 2013, denying petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized and unapplied input VAT paid on domestic purchases of goods and services attributable to effectively zero-rated sales for taxable year 2009. EcHIDT As grounds for the motion, petitioner argues: a) The total amount of the claim of input VAT for the four (4) quarters of the taxable year 2009 was not applied against any output VAT in the succeeding years. b) The disallowance of Php7,228,595.53 is not in accordance with law and jurisprudence as the supporting official receipts and invoices show that the Petitioner incurred and paid the input VAT. c) While laws granting tax exemptions must be construed strictissimi juris to the taxpayer, the tax exemption must be granted when the supporting evidence shows that the taxpayer is entitled to the same. 3 Petitioner's motion is denied. Petitioner's arguments have all been passed upon and discussed in the Decision, and We find no reason to disturb the findings made therein. The disallowance of P7,228,595.53 for failure of the supporting invoice or official receipt to comply with the invoicing requirements, was duly broken down in Annex " A " of the Decision. 4 With respect to proof that the amount of input VAT claimed for refund has not been applied against any output VAT in the succeeding quarters, petitioner should have deducted the claimed input taxes from its accumulated input VAT as of the quarter when it opted to file a claim. However, petitioner failed to submit any supporting documents. cHCIDE The reason for the deduction is to assure that the claimed input VAT shall not be applied against any future output VAT liability. In its motion, petitioner manifested that it will present certified true copies of petitioner's quarterly VAT returns for the four quarters of taxable years 2010 to the first quarter of 2013. 5 And in the next paragraph, petitioner referred to "attached VAT returns", though no quarterly VAT returns were attached to the motion. 6 Without convincing evidence that the subject input taxes were not utilized or carried over as credit to the subsequent quarter, this Court cannot grant petitioner's prayer. To grant petitioner's claim for refund, without proof of deduction of the correspondent amount, would be dangerous and tantamount to granting twice the refund herein sought to be refunded, to the prejudice of the Government. 7 On July 17, 2013, petitioner filed its Motion for Leave of Court to Submit Additional Evidence. Considering the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the subject Motion for Leave of Court to Submit Additional Evidence is rendered moot. WHEREFORE , the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . caTIDE (SGD.) AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, J., concurs. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 665-678. 2. Docket, pp. 640-664. 3. Docket, p. 668. 4. Docket, p. 656. 5. Docket, p. 669, par. 12. 6. Docket, p. 669, par. 13. 7. Sagara Metro Plastics Industrial Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , C.T.A. Case Nos. 6295, 6320, and 6333, October 10, 2003.