FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218823. November 10, 2015.]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. MANULIFE DATA SERVICES, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 10, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218823 — COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner v. MANULIFE DATA SERVICES, INC., respondent.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure appealing the Decision 1 dated 17 November 2014 and Resolution 2 dated 18 June 2015 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc) in CTA EB No. 1051, which affirmed the Decision of the CTA Division granting Manulife Data Services, Inc. (Manulife) tax credit on its unapplied/excess input VAT from its zero-rated sales for the calendar year 2008.
Private respondent Manulife is a foreign corporation duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) operating as a Regional Headquarters for the purpose of engaging in the business of general administration, business planning and corporate finance advisory services, among others.
On 4 December 2009, Manulife filed a claim before the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Revenue District Office No. 38 for the issuance of tax credit certificate for its unapplied/excess input VAT from its zero-rated sales covering the first quarter of 2008. On 26 February 2010, it filed the same tax credit certificate covering the second to fourth quarters of 2008.
Due to the inaction on the part of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Kim Jacinto-Henares (CIR Henares) on the claims, Manulife elevated the application for issuance before the CTA Division through a petition for review.
In reply, CIR Henares answered that in order for Manulife to claim for refund, it must submit the complete list of documents necessary, that the claim must be subject to administrative investigation and examination by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and that Manulife should have complied with the 120+30-periods under Section 112 of the NIRC before it filed its petition.
During trial, Manulife presented the documentary and testimonial evidence to prove its claim, while, CIR Henares manifested that she has no witness to present.
On 8 May 2013, CTA Division partially granted the refund claim of Manulife in a reduced amount of P8,294,312.44 for the four quarters of 2008. As result, CIR Henares was ordered by the tax court to issue a refund certificate in favor of Manulife. The motions for reconsideration filed by both parties were denied.
Aggrieved, CIR Henares elevated the case before the CTA En Banc praying for the reversal of the decision of the CTA Division.
On 17 November 2014, CTA En Banc rendered this assailed decision affirming in toto the decision of CTA Division.
We deny the petition.
First Issue: Whether Manulife's claim for refund for the first quarter of 2008 was prematurely filed.
In her petition, CIR Henares contended that Manulife failed to comply with the mandatory period of 120+30 days before it filed its petition for review before the CTA on 30 March 2010.
As a general rule, a VAT-registered taxpayer, pursuant to Section 112 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8424, NIRC of 1997 as amended by R.A. No. 9337, 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 . . . . The Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) of Section 112.
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 un-acted claim with the CTA. SDHTEC
However, the mandatory compliance with 120+30-day period is subject to exceptions: First, if the Commissioner, through a specific ruling, misleads a particular taxpayer to prematurely file a judicial claim with the CTA. Such specific ruling is applicable only to such particular taxpayer. Second, where the Commissioner, through a general interpretative rule issued under Section 4 of the Tax Code, misleads all taxpayers into filing prematurely judicial claims with the CTA. 3 In this case, exception sets in because during the time of the filing of petition for review before the CTA on 30 March 2010, the prevailing rule was the BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, a general interpretative rule issued by then BIR Commissioner Jose Mario C. Bunag on 10 December 2003 which explicitly states that a "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."
This rule was clarified by the Court En Banc in the consolidated cases of CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, 4 Taganito Mining Corporation v. CIR5 and Philex Mining Corporation v. CIR, 6 when it ruled that strict compliance with the 120+30-day period is necessary except for the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010, when the Aichi doctrine was adopted, which again reinstated the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional. Since the Manulife filed its petition on 30 March 2010, the filing was within the excepted period that was clarified in the foregoing ruling.
Second Issue: Whether CTA En Banc erred in affirming the grant of tax refund despite the non-submission of complete documents.
CIR alleged that Manulife is not entitled to tax refund since it failed to prove that it has submitted the required complete documents to support its claim.
We disagree.
In order to discharge the burden in proving entitlement to tax refund, a taxpayer is presumed to have attached the complete supporting documents necessary to prove its entitlement to a refund in its application, absent any evidence to the contrary. 7 Pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circular 29-2009, it is the duty of the processing/investigating office to send three notifications and denial letter to the taxpayer to inform him of the denial in case of submission of incomplete documents.
In this case, other than general denial, CIR did not present concrete evidence showing that Manulife failed to submit the necessary supporting documents to claim for a refund. It must be noted that aside from not contesting the veracity of the documents, CIR even failed to present any witness or evidence to rebut the presumption.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dated 17 November 2014 and 18 June 2015 in CTA EB No. 1051 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1 Penned by CTA Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy; rollo, pp. 29-57.
2. Id. at 59-70.
3. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, 12 February 2013, 690 SCRA, 336, 401.
4. Id. at 398-399.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. CBK Power Company Limited v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 198729-30, 15 January 2014, 714 SCRA 46, 57.