SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252993. September 21, 2020.]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,vs. CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated21 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252993 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CBK Power Company Limited). — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period, within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, WITH WARNING THAT THE SAME SHALL BE THE LAST AND NO FURTHER EXTENSION will be given.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the October 25, 2019 Decision 2 and the June 26, 2020 Resolution 3 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA EB) in CTA EB No. 1861 for failure of the CIR to sufficiently show that the CTA EB committed any reversible error in holding that respondent CBK Power Company Limited (respondent) is entitled to its claim for refund for input value-added taxes (VAT).
As correctly ruled by the CTA EB, the issue on whether or not respondent was actually compliant with the requirements under Republic Act No. 9513, 4 otherwise known as the 'Renewable Energy Act of 2008,' in order to avail of the fiscal incentives under Section 15 thereof is a matter that must be duly proven in the course of the trial proper through the submission of competent proof. Curiously, it is the CIR who advanced the foregoing theory as a defense to disallow respondent's claim for refund, but presented no evidence to buttress its claim. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his/her affirmative allegations, 5 and that mere allegation is not a proof; especially in this case, when the CIR was given ample opportunity to present evidence but intentionally omitted to do so. 6 As to the issue on the CTA EB's findings that CBK is entitled to its claim for refund, suffice it to say that the determination of whether or not CBK's input VAT is 'directly attributable' to its zero-rated sales is a question of fact. It is settled that the CTA's findings can only be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by substantial evidence, or there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the Tax Court, 7 which do not obtain in this case. Hence, the instant petition must be denied.
SO ORDERED. (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-31.
2.Id. at 38-61. Penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda Jr. with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, concurring.
3.Id. at 62-66. Penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda Jr. with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, concurring.
4. Entitled "AN ACT PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on December 16, 2008.
5. See Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. v. Masagca, G.R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018.
6.Rollo, p. 46.
7.CIR v. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), 735 Phil. 547-561 (2014).