Case digest

Total (Philippines) Corporation vs. CIR

CTA EB No. 1154 (CTA Case Nos. 7898, 7890 and 8008), April 21, 2015
Castaneda, Jr., J:

Facts: Petitioner is a VAT-registered entity licensed by the SEC to acquire, assemble, install… and otherwise
deal with oil terminals and service station networks. Petitioner filed various ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS for
refund with the BIR. Prior to the resolution of the BIR of the said administrative claim, petitioner filed
JUDICIAL CLAIMS for refund on the ff. dates:

Date of Filing
Case No. Period Covered Date of Filing (Administrative Claim)
(Judicial Claim)
CTA Case No. 7898 1st & 2nd Qtrs, 2007 March 31, 2009 March 31, 200
CTA Case No. 7980 3rd Qtr, 2007 June 2, 2009 September 30, 2009
CTA Case No. 8008 4th Qtr., 2007 October 27, 2009 December 21, 2009

CIR raises similar arguments and defences in her separate Answers (nos. 1-7)
#1- petitioner’s alleged claim for refund is subject to administrative routinary investigation by the
BIR
#2- the subject of petitioner’s refund claims in CTA cases as alleged unutilized VAT input taxes were
not properly documented.
#3-In an action for refund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish its right to refund,
and failure to sustain the burden is fatal to the claim for refud/credit.
#4-
#5-ALL the PETITIONS for Review in the instant consolidated cases were prematurely filed in
contravention of Section 112(D) of the NIRC of 1997
#6
#7
 CTA Special Division denied the Petitions for review. Hence, this petition for review.

Issues
Held:
1. Petitioner failed to prove its sales were zero-rated sales.
2. Input Tax carried over from the previous quarter was not validated.
3. Valid disallowance of petitioner’s input VAT in the amount of P99,993,863.07
4. Refund of Input VAT is proper when INPUT VAT, attributable to zero-rated sales, exceeds output VAT.