Kodec Precision, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9491. February 23, 2021.] KODEC PRECISION, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND ATTY. JETHRO M. OIC-REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REVENUE REGION NO. 4, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA , respondents . DECISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO , J p : The Case This is a Petition for Review, 1 filed on 8 November 2016, pursuant to Section 3 (a) (1), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA") , 2 by Kodec Precision, Inc.,asking the Court to reverse and set aside the Decision, dated 5 October 2016, rendered by respondent Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga, the Officer-in-Charge ("OIC") Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") Revenue Region No. 4 ("assailed Decision"),and to grant its refund claim for input Value-Added Tax ("VAT") in the amount of P1,182,430.11 for the 1st to 4th quarters of taxable year ("TY") 2014. The Parties Petitioner Kodec Precision, Inc. is an export market enterprise duly registered under Philippine Laws with Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Company Registration No. CS200603781 and Philippine Economic Zone Authority ("PEZA") Certificate of Registration No. 09-44. It is a VAT-registered entity with Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") Certificate of Registration No. OCN00000310530 and Taxpayer Identification No. 244-310-330-000. It holds office at Angeles Industrial Park, Special Economic Zone, Calibutbut, Bacolor, Pampanga. Petitioner is primarily engaged in the manufacture and sale through direct and indirect exports of computer parts such as but not limited to Base Plate Hard Disk Drive ("HDD"),Bracket for Spindle Motor, etc.,and Automotive Parts such as Compressor Housing, Water Pump Housing, etc. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") is the chief of the BIR who is vested by the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "Tax Code") the authority to decide, approve, and grant tax refunds claims. He may be served with summons and other court processes at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. Respondent Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga ("Sabariaga") is impleaded in his capacity as OIC-Regional Director of the BIR, Revenue Region 4, San Fernando, Pampanga. He is mandated by law to administer and enforce internal revenue laws, rules and regulations, among others. CAIHTE The Facts On 28 September 2015, petitioner filed its Application for VAT refund claim with attached supporting documents at BIR Revenue District Office ("RDO") No. 21B. The VAT refund claim represents its alleged excess and unutilized input VAT for the 1st to 4th quarters of TY 2014 in the amount of P1,182,430.11. 3 On 14 January 2016, respondent Sabariaga issued Letter of Authority ("LOA") No. SNeLA201100065476 with attached Letter, dated 21 January 2016, requiring petitioner to submit additional supporting documents. Petitioner received the LOA with the said Letter on 21 January 2016. 4 On 5 October 2016, respondent Sabariaga issued the assailed Decision denying petitioner's claim for VAT refund. The Decision was received by petitioner on 13 October 2016. 5 This prompted petitioner to file the instant Petition for Review on 8 November 2016. 6 On 22 November 2016, the Court issued Summons requiring respondents to file their Answer within 15 days from its receipt of the same. 7 This was received by respondents on 24 November 2016, However, per the Court's Verification Report, dated 18 January 2017, respondents did not file their Answer within the stated period. 8 It was only on 19 April 2017 when respondents filed their Motion to Admit Attached Answer. In the said Motion, respondents explained that the initial handling lawyer had to attend to important family matters during the time of their receipt of the Summons and that it was only after his resignation and when his files were turned over to the new handling lawyer on 27 March 2017 that they found out that an Answer had not yet been filed. It, therefore, prayed for the Court to afford them leniency and to admit their Answer. 9 On 18 May 2017, petitioner filed its Comment [on Respondents' Motion to Admit Attached Answer] with Motion to Declare Respondents in Default. It argued that respondents should be declared in default for their failure to file their Answer. It opined that the reason interposed by respondents are inexcusable since the BIR has other lawyers who could have filed the said pleading, even if the initial handling lawyer was indisposed. 10 On 22 June 2017, respondents submitted to Court the BIR Records pertinent to this case. 11 Meanwhile, on 25 July 2017, the Court issued a Resolution denying respondents' Motion to Admit Attached Answer and declaring them in default. 12 Aggrieved, respondents filed their Omnibus Motion on 18 August 2017, asking the Court to lift its Order declaring them in default and to admit their Answer. 13 However, the same was also denied by the Court on 9 October 2017. 14 Undeterred, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration (re: Resolution dated 09 October 2017) on 23 October 2017 15 which was, likewise, denied by the Court on 8 January 2018. 16 This prompted respondents to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on 12 March 2018. 17 This was dismissed by the High Court with finality on 16 September 2019. 18 During trial, petitioner presented the following witnesses: (a) Ms. Evangeline P. De Guzman Accounting Manager of petitioner; 19 She testified on the fact that petitioner is registered with the SEC, BIR, and PEZA. She narrated that petitioner, in the course of its business, rendered zero-rated sales. She said that petitioner also incurred input VAT that remained unutilized until said date, which caused the same to file the present claim. Finally, she identified documents relevant to petitioner's case. DETACa (b) Mr. Emilio B. Panganiban, Jr., the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant ("ICPA"). 20 He discussed his observations and findings in relation to his examination of petitioner's supporting documents and identified documents he inspected in relation to the present claim. Thereafter, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence ("FOE") on 13 February 2019. 21 In a Resolution, dated 22 April 2019, the Court resolved to admit petitioner's offered exhibits, except for Exhibits "P-17", "P-17-1", "P-17-2", "P-17-3", "P-17-4", "P-17-5", "P-17-6", "P-17-7", "P-17-8", "P-17-9", "P-17-10", "P-17-11", "P-21", "P-21-1", "P-21-2", "P-21-3", "P-21-4", "P-21-5", "P-21-6", "P-21-7", "P-21-8", "P-21-9", "P-21-10", "P-21-11", "P-30-1", "P-30-2", "P-30-3", "P-30-4", "P-30-5", "P-30-6", "P-30-7", "P-30-8", "P-30-9", "P-30-10", "P-30-11", and "P-30-12" for failure to pre-mark (sub-mark) the receipts, invoices, or other documents as provided under the RRCTA; and Exhibit "P-35" for not being found in the records. 22 Aggrieved, petitioner posted its Motion for Partial Reconsideration on 17 June 2019. 23 On 26 December 2019, the Court issued a Resolution granting petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The Court admitted petitioner's Exhibits "P-17","P-17-1","P-17-2","P-17-3","P-17-4","P-17-5","P-17-6","P-17-7","P-17-8","P-17-9","P-17-10","P-17-11","P-21","P-21-1","P-21-2","P-21-3","P-21-4","P-21-5","P-21-6","P-21-7","P-21-8","P-21-9","P-21-10","P-21-11","P-30-1","P-30-2","P-30-3","P-30-4","P-30-5","P-30-6","P-30-7","P-30-8","P-30-9","P-30-10","P-30-11","P-30-12" and "P-35" into evidence. 24 Petitioner filed its Memorandum on 7 February 2020. 25 Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision on 27 February 2020. 26 Hence, this Decision. The Issues 27 WHETHER RESPONDENTS ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR INPUT VAT REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF P1,182,430.11 ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER'S VAT RETURNS FILED FOR THE PERIOD 1 JANUARY 2014 TO 31 DECEMBER 2014 ALLEGEDLY DID NOT SHOW ANY ZERO-RATED SALES; WHETHER RESPONDENTS ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR INPUT VAT REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF P1,182,430.11 ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO PRESENT PERTINENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE PROCESSING OF THE SAID REFUND CLAIM; AND WHETHER RESPONDENTS ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR INPUT VAT REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF P1,182,430.11 ON THE GROUND THAT THE REFUNDABLE AMOUNT WAS APPLIED AGAINST ITS OUTPUT VAT IN 2015. Arguments of the Petitioner 28 Petitioner argues that respondents erred in denying its VAT refund claim on the grounds that it failed to prove that it has zero-rated sales and that the refundable amount had already been applied against its output VAT for subsequent periods. Petitioner contends that it is compliant with the requirements imposed under the Tax Code, specifically: (a) that it is a VAT registered person; (b) that it is engaged in rendering zero-rated sales through direct and indirect export of computer parts; (c) that the input VAT being claimed had already been paid; (d) that the administrative claim relevant to this case was timely filed; and (e) that the refundable/creditable amount had not been applied against any of its output VAT or carried over to succeeding quarters. aDSIHc The Ruling of the Court The provisions governing claims for tax refund of excess or unutilized creditable input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales are Sections 112 (A) and (C) of the Tax Code ,which provide: "SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input 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)(1),(2) and (b) and Section 108(B)(1) 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 :Provided, finally, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 108(B)(6),the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales. xxx xxx xxx (C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof . ATICcS In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty-day period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals ." 29 Pertinent to the aforementioned is the case of Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 30 which discussed the relevant periods within which a taxpayer-applicant should file its administrative and judicial claims for tax refund/credit of input VAT, to wit: "x x x a VAT-registered taxpayer who has excess and unutilized creditable input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales may file an application for cash refund or issuance of TCC (administrative claim) before the CIR who has primary jurisdiction to decide such application. The period within which to file the administrative claim is two (2) years reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the pertinent zero-rated sales were made . From the submission of complete documents to support the administrative claim, the CIR is given a 120-day period to decide .In case of whole or partial denial of or inaction on the administrative claim, the taxpayer may bring his judicial claim, through a petition for review, before the CTA who has exclusive and appellate jurisdiction. The period to appeal is thirty (30) days counted from the receipt of the decision or inaction by the CIR ." 31 As discussed, a taxpayer-applicant must take into consideration two periods in order to successfully prosecute an input VAT refund claim. First is the period within which to file the administrative claim for refund, which should be done within two (2) years reckoning from the close of the taxable quarter when the pertinent zero-rated sales were made; and Second is the period to file the judicial claim for refund, which should be filed within thirty (30) days, either from the receipt of the adverse decision of the BIR or after the lapse of one hundred twenty (120) days from the time the taxpayer-applicant submitted its complete supporting documents to the BIR, whichever comes first. In this case, there is no dispute that petitioner was able to file its administrative claim within the 2-year period. Here, the present claim covers the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of TY 2014. Counting 2 years from the close of each taxable quarters, the Court finds that the respective last days for filing the administrative claim are as follows: Period Close of the Taxable Last Day to File Administrative Claim Date of Filing of the Administrative Claim 1st Quarter of 2014 (1 January 2014- 31 March 2014) 31 March 2014 31 March 2016 28 September 2015 32 2nd Quarter of 2014 (1 April 2014- 30 June 2014) 30 June 2014 30 June 2016 3rd Quarter of 2014 (1 July 2014- 30 September 2014) 30 September 2014 30 September 2016 4th Quarter of 2014 (1 October 2014- 31 December 2014) 31 December 2014 31 December 2016 As can be gleaned above, the administrative claim was filed on 28 September 2015 or before the end of the 2-year period for each quarter. Clearly, petitioner is compliant with the first requirement. cSEDTC As for the second requirement, the Tax Code provides that the BIR is given 120 days to act on the claim. During this period, the BIR can grant, deny, fully or partial, or not act on the VAT refund claim. In cases when he does not act on the claim within the 120-day period, the same is considered deemed denied. The case of Silicon Philippines, Inc. vs. CIR 33 illustrates this point, to wit: "Upon the filing of an administrative claim, respondent is given a period of 120 days within which to (1) grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes; or (2) make a full or partial denial of the claim for a tax refund or tax credit. Failure on the part of respondent to act on the application within the 120-day period shall be deemed a denial ." 34 Meanwhile, the reckoning of the 120-day period will depend on when the administrative claim was filed, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. v. CIR (hereinafter referred to as "Total Gas Case") , 35 to wit: "Thus, the question must be asked: In an administrative claim for tax credit or refund of creditable input VAT, from what point does the law allow the CIR to determine when it should decide an application for refund? Or stated differently: Under present law, when should the submission of documents be deemed "completed" for purposes of determining the running of the 120-day period? xxx xxx xxx With the amendments only with respect to its place under Section 112, the Court finds that RMC No. 49-2003 should still be observed, Thus, taking the foregoing changes to the law altogether, it becomes apparent that, for purposes of determining when the supporting documents have been completed it is the taxpayer who ultimately determines when complete documents have been submitted for the purpose of commencing and continuing the running of the 120-day period. After all, he may have already completed the necessary documents the moment he filed his administrative claim, in which case, the 120-day period is reckoned from the date of filing . The taxpayer may have also filed the complete documents on the 30th day from filing of his application, pursuant to RMC No. 49-2003. He may very well have filed his supporting documents on the first day he was notified by the BIR of the lack of the necessary documents. In such cases, the 120-day period is computed from the date the taxpayer is able to submit the complete documents in support of his application. xxx xxx xxx Lest it be misunderstood, the benefit given to the taxpayer to determine when it should complete its submission of documents is not unbridled. Under RMC No. 49-2003, if in the course of the investigation and processing of the claim, additional documents are required for the proper determination of the legitimacy of the claim, the taxpayer-claimants shall submit such documents within thirty (30) days from request of the investigating/processing office. Again, notice, by way of a request from the tax collection authority to produce the complete documents in these cases, is essential . Moreover, under Section 112(A) of the NIRC, as amended by RA 9337, a taxpayer has two (2) years, after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, to apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales. Thus, before the administrative claim is barred by prescription, the taxpayer must be able to submit his complete documents in support of the application filed. This is because, it is upon the complete submission of his documents in support of his application that it can be said that the application was, "officially received" as provided under RMC No. 49-2003. To summarize, for the just disposition of the subject controversy, the rule is that from the date an administrative claim for excess unutilized VAT is filed, a taxpayer has thirty (30) days within which to submit the documentary requirements sufficient to support his claim, unless given further extension by the CIR. Then, upon filing by the taxpayer of his complete documents to support his application, or expiration of the period given, the CIR has 120 days within which to decide the claim for tax credit or refund. Should the taxpayer, on the date of his filing, manifest that he no longer wishes to submit any other addition documents to complete his administrative claim, the 120-day period allowed to the CIR begins to run from the date of filing. In all cases, whatever documents a taxpayer intends to file to support his claim must be completed within the two-year period under Section 112(A) of the NIRC. The 30-day period from denial of the claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period within which to appeal the denial or inaction of the CIR to the CTA must also be respected . It bears mentioning at this point that the foregoing summation of the rules should only be made applicable to those claims for tax credit or refund filed prior to June 11, 2014 , such as the claim at bench. As it now stands, RMC 54-2014 dated June 11, 2014 mandates that: The application for VAT refund/tax credit must be accompanied by complete supporting documents as enumerated in Annex "A" hereof. In addition, the taxpayer shall attach a statement under oath attesting to the completeness of the submitted documents (Annex B).The affidavit shall further state that the said documents are the only documents which the taxpayer will present to support the claim. If the taxpayer is a juridical person, there should be a sworn statement that the officer signing the affidavit ( i.e. ,at the very least, the Chief Financial Officer) has been authorized by the Board of Directors of the company. Upon submission of the administrative claim and its supporting documents, the claim shall be processed and no other documents shall be accepted/required from the taxpayer in the course of its evaluation. A decision shall be rendered by the Commissioner based only on the documents submitted by the taxpayer. The application for tax refund/tax credit shall be denied where the taxpayer/claimant failed to submit the complete supporting documents. For this purpose, the concerned processing/investigating office shall prepare and issue the corresponding Denial Letter to the taxpayer/claimant. AaCTcI Thus, under the current rule, the reckoning of the 120-day period has been withdrawn from the taxpayer by RMC 54-2014, since it requires him at the time he files his claim to complete his supporting documents and attest that he will no longer submit any other document to prove his claim. Further, the taxpayer is barred from submitting additional documents after he has filed his administrative claim. 36 Hence, for administrative claims filed prior to the effectivity of Revenue Memorandum Circular ("RMC") No. 54-14 on 11 June 2014, 37 the submission of documents is deemed completed for purposes of determining the commencement of the 120-day period either from the moment the taxpayer-applicant notifies the BIR that it had already filed all its supporting documents, which should be accomplished within 30 days from the filing of its application; or, in cases where the BIR requires the taxpayer-applicant to submit additional documents, from the submission of the requested additional documents which should be done within 30 days from the request of the investigating/processing office. Meanwhile, for administrative claims filed on 11 June 2014 onwards, the taxpayer-applicants are required to submit all supporting documents together with their administrative claim. The BIR, at this point, is barred from requesting additional document from the taxpayer-applicant. Considering the said rule, the reckoning of the 120-day period will now always coincide with the date of filing of the administrative claim. Applying the foregoing in the case at bar, the administrative claim was filed on 28 September 2015. 38 Clearly, the rule applicable is the one imposed under RMC 54-14. Accordingly, respondent CIR had 120 days from the filing of the administrative claim, or until, 26 January 2016, within which to render his decision. However, since respondents were not able to render a decision within the 120-day period, petitioner had 30 days from 26 January 2016, or until 25 February 2016, within which to file its Petition for Review, determined as follows: Period Covered Date of Filing of Administrative Claim End of 120 days for BIR to decide on the claim End of 30 days from the expiration of the 120 days Date of Filing of the Petition for Review 1st to 4th Quarter of 2014 28 September 2015 39 26 January 2016 25 February 2016 8 November 2016 40 As shown above, the Petition for Review was filed only on 8 November 2016 or beyond the 120+30-day periods prescribed under the Tax Code, rendering the filing of the instant Petition out of time. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Court takes into consideration the Letter of respondent Sabariaga asking for additional supporting documents, this would make no difference. Based on the evidence presented, the Letter was issued by the BIR and received by petitioner on 21 January 2016. According to the Total Gas Case ,the taxpayer is required to submit the additional requested documents within 30 days from the request of the investigating/processing office. Hence, the reckoning of the 120-day period will be 30 days after 21 January 2016, or on 20 February 2016. Meanwhile, the BIR had until 19 June 2016 to decide on the claim. As discussed, since no decision was rendered at this point, petitioner had until 19 July 2016 within which to file the instant Petition, which petitioner failed to do. The consequence of filing the judicial claim outside the 120+30-day periods was discussed by the Supreme Court in Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. CIR , 41 to wit: "In the Aichi case cited by both the CTA Division and the CTA En Banc, the Court held that the observance of the 120-day period is a mandatory and jurisdictional requisite to the filing of a judicial claim for refund/credit of input VAT before the CTA. Consequently, its non-observance would lead to the dismissal of the judicial claim on the ground of lack of jurisdiction . Aichi also clarified that the two (2)-year prescriptive period applies only to administrative claims and not to judicial claims. Succinctly put, once the administrative claim is filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period, the claimant must wait for the 120-day period to end and, thereafter, he is given a 30-day period to file his judicial claim before the CTA, even if said 120-day and 30-day periods would exceed the aforementioned two (2)-year prescriptive period. EcTCAD However, in CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation (San Roque), the Court recognized an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120-day period. It ruled that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated December 10, 2003 provided a valid claim for equitable estoppel under Section 246 of the NIRC .In essence, the aforesaid BIR Ruling stated that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review." 42 In the said case, the High Court held that the 120-day and 30-day periods are both mandatory and jurisdictional and that non-compliance with both periods will render the judicial claim void ab initio . The only exception to this rule is a judicial claim prematurely filed pursuant to BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Applying the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is dismissible. To stress, petitioner should have appealed its VAT refund claim within 30 days from the lapse of the 120+30-day periods or until 25 February 2016. However, petitioner only filed its judicial claim on 8 November 2016 43 or several months after the lapse of the said period. Petitioner cannot anchor its right to file the judicial claim on the assailed Decision issued by respondent Sabariaga. The Supreme Court, in numerous cases, had already ruled that a denial letter received after the lapse of the 120-day period is already inconsequential in determining the period to file the judicial claim, because the administrative claim, by the end of the 120-day period, is already considered deemed denied and consequently had already become final and inappealable after the lapse of 30-day period, as warned in CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation , 44 to wit: The Atlas doctrine cannot save Philex from the late filing of its judicial claim. The inaction of the Commissioner on Philex's claim during the 120-day period is, by express provision of law, "deemed a denial" of Philex's claim, Philex had 30 days from the expiration of the 120-day period to file its judicial claim with the CTA. Philex's failure to do so rendered the "deemed a denial" decision of the Commissioner final and inappealable . The right to appeal to the CTA from a decision or "deemed a denial" decision of the Commissioner is merely a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right. The exercise of such statutory privilege requires strict compliance with the conditions attached by the statute for its exercise. Philex failed to comply with the statutory conditions and must thus bear the consequences. 45 It should be noted that "tax refunds or tax credits just like tax exemptions are strictly construed against taxpayers, the latter having the burden to prove strict compliance with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit." 46 Unfortunately, in this case, the judicial claim was filed beyond the mandatory and jurisdictional 120+30-day periods. Hence, the Court is constrained to dismiss the instant Petition for lack of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE ,premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. HSAcaE SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ. ,concur. Footnotes 1. Petition for Review, Division Records, Vol. 1, pp. 10-178, with annexes. 2. A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA; 22 November 2005. 3. Letter dated 24 September 2015; BIR Records, p. 466; Application for Tax Credits/Refunds, Exhibit "P-5";ICPA Records, Folder 1, Tab 2.1. 4. Letter of Authority; id. ,p. 470; Letter dated 21 January 2016; BIR Records, p. 469. 5. Denial Letter dated 5 October 2016, Division Records, Vol. 1, p. 178; BIR Records, p. 508. 6. Petition for Review, Division Records, Vol. 1, p. 10-178, with annexes. 7. Summons, id. ,p. 179. 8. Records Verification, id. ,p. 181. 9. Motion to Admit Answer; id. ,pp. 182-187; Answer; id. ,pp. 188-190. 10. Comment [on Respondents' Motion to Admit Attached Answer] with Motion to Declare Respondents in Default; id. ,pp. 193-197. 11. Manifestation (Re: Submission of BIR Records); id. ,pp. 198-201; Minute Resolution; id. ,p. 202. 12. Resolution; id. ,pp. 205-208. 13. Omnibus Motion; id. ,pp. 212-217. 14. Resolution; id. ,pp. 239-241. 15. Motion for Reconsideration (re: Resolution dated 09 October 2017); id. ,pp. 255-261. 16. Resolution, id. ,pp. 274-275. 17. Petition for Certiorari ; id. ,pp. 288-347, with attachments; Manifestation; Division Records, Vol. 1, pp. 348-355. 18. Notice, Division Records, Vol. 1, pp. 488-489; Notice; Division Records, Vol. 2, p. 527. 19. Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Evangeline P. De Guzman, Exhibit "P-40";Division Records, Vol. 1, pp. 232-237; Minutes; id. ,p. 242; Order; id. ,pp. 246-247; Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Evangeline P. De Guzman, Exhibit "P-41"; id. ,pp. 414-417; Minutes; id. ,p. 418; Order; id. ,pp. 419-420. 20. Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Emilio B. Panganiban, Exhibit "P-42";Division Records, Vol. 2, pp. 409-412; Minutes; Division Records, Vol. 1, p. 418; Order; id. ,pp. 419-420. 21. Formal Offer of Evidence for the Petitioner; id. ,pp. 433-451. 22. Resolution; id. ,pp. 467-473. 23. Motion: [1] For Partial Reconsideration of the April 22, 2019 Resolution; [2] For Extension of Time to comply with the April 22, 2019 Resolution; and [3] To Defer Submission of Memorandum; id. ,pp. 474-477. 24. Resolution; Division Records, Vol. 2, pp. 522-525. 25. Memorandum; id. ,pp. 529-536. 26. Resolution; Id. ,p. 552. 27. Petition for Review; Division Records, Vol. 1, pp. 10-178, with annexes. 28. Memorandum; Division Records. Vol. 2, pp. 529-536. 29. Emphasis supplied. 30. G.R. No. 191495, 23 July 2018. 31. Emphasis supplied. 32. Letter dated 24 September 2015; BIR Records, p. 466; Application for Tax Credits/Refunds, Exhibit "P-5";ICPA Records, Folder 1, Tab 2.1. 33. G.R. No. 182737, 2 March 2016. 34. Emphasis and underscoring supplied. 35. G.R. No. 207112, 8 December 2015. 36. Emphasis supplied. 37. Clarifying Issues Relative to the Application for Value Added Tax (VAT) Refund/Credit under Section 112 of the Tax Code, as Amended, 11 June 2014. 38. Letter dated 24 September 2015; BIR Records, p. 466; Application for Tax Credits/Refunds, Exhibit "P-3";ICPA Records, Folder 1, Tab 2.1. 39. Ibid. 40. Petition for Review; Division Records, Vol. 1, pp. 10-178, with annexes. 41. Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ,G.R. No. 204745, 8 December 2014 citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. ,G.R. No. 184823, 6 October 2010 and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation ,G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, 12 February 2013. 42. Emphasis supplied. 43. Petition for Review; Division Records, Vol. 1, pp. 10-178, with annexes. 44. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation ,G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, 12 February 2013. 45. Emphasis supplied. 46. Sitel Philippines Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ,G.R. No. 201326, 8 February 2017.