[LAWS ARE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR] [DENIED EXCISE TAX REFUND DUE TO BELATED FILING]

Petitioner Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company filed a Petition for Review seeking the reversal of the Court’s earlier decision dismissing the Petition due to lack of jurisdiction because of belated filing. Petitioner contends that the dismissal is tantamount to denial of the right to appeal and violation of constitutional right to due process. Likewise, the provisions of Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) law shall apply in this case. In ruling, the Court held that Petitioner’s allegation that the TRAIN Law version of Section 112(C) of the Tax Code should be applied in the instant case is erroneous. The subject refund was filed on March and June 2011, or before the effectivity date of the TRAIN Law. Thus, all amendments caused by the TRAIN Law to the Tax Code are wholly inapplicable in the present case. It is noteworthy that tax laws are applied prospectively unless otherwise expressly provided for. Under the pre-TRAIN Law, the taxpayer affected may, within 30 days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the 120-day period from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. Here, Petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory and jurisdictional 120+30-day period. Following the above discussions, the Court deems it unnecessary to resolve the other issues. Thus, the Petition was DENIED. [LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, CTA EN BANC CASE NO. 2273, DECEMBER 16, 2021]

[DENIAL OF EXCISE TAX REFUND DUE TO FAILURE TO SUFFICIENTLY PROVE THAT FINISHED GOODS REMOVED WERE PRODUCED FROM THE TAX-PAID RAW MATERIALS] [COURTS ARE NOT BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE ICPA]

Petitioner Ginebra San Miguel, Inc. filed a Petition for Review seeking to reverse the earlier decision denying Petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of a Tax Credit Certificate, allegedly representing excise taxes erroneously, excessively, and wrongfully assessed on, and collected by the Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on removals of its distilled spirits or finished goods. Petitioner alleged that the testimony of the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) is an expert testimony, stating that the usage of the ethyl alcohol inventory on the finished goods was fully accounted using the First-In First-Out (FIFO) method of accounting. Hence, it is inequitable for the Court to deny the entire claim. In ruling, the Court held that Petitioner is not entitled to the excise tax refund. The imposition of excise taxes on the finished liquor products produced from tax-paid ethyl alcohol is contrary to the mandate of Section 170 of the 1997 Tax Code, however, the same must be disallowed for Petitioner did not convince the Court of the factual aspect of its claim. The Court finds that while Petitioner was able to present adequate documents supporting the transfer of the raw alcohol from one place to another, supposedly for each process such as compounding and packaging, it failed to support the actual utilization of the raw alcohol into the production. Furthermore, the Court may render judgment without considering the ICPA Report, for it is only persuasive in nature and not conclusive upon the Court. Thus, the Petition was DENIED. [GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, INC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, CTA EN BANC CASE NO. 2308, NOVEMBER 10, 2021]

[ON PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, OFFICERS WHO ISSUED THESE CERTIFICATIONS NEED NOT BE PRESENTED IN COURT TO TESTIFY ON THEM] [AN APPEAL WITHOUT AN ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS WOULD BE SIMILAR TO A SUIT WITHOUT A COMPLAINT, BILL, OR DECLARATION]

Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed a Petition for Review seeking to set aside the Decision partially granting refund or issue Tax Credit Certificate (TCC) representing excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, in favor of the Respondent Actuate Builders, Inc. (ABI). Petitioner argues that since the Court in Division ruled that a certain amount representing Respondent’s sale of services did not qualify for zero-rating, the same should be subjected to 12% VAT. In ruling, the Court held that a Petition for Review, which is insufficient in form, is dismissible. Section 2, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the CTA (RRCTA) requires that the Petition shall contain allegations showing the jurisdiction of the Court, a concise statement of the complete facts and a summary statement of the issues involved in the case, as well as reasons relied upon for the review of the challenged decision. A cursory examination of the Petition immediately showed that neither does it contain a statement of facts, nor an assignment of errors attributed to the assailed Decision and Resolution. This, in itself, renders the Petition dismissible in accordance with Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court. Furthermore, Petitioner failed to indicate any assignment of errors pertaining to the assailed Decision and Resolution in his Petition for Review. The Appellant has to specify in what aspect of the law or the facts that the Trial Court erred. There is long standing precedent that a general assignment of errors is unacceptable under the rules. Lastly, given that the documents also being questioned by the Petitioner are public documents, the officers who issued these certifications need not be presented in Court to testify on them. Thus, the Petition was DENIED. [COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. ACTUATE BUILDERS, INC., CTA EN BANC CASE NO. 2298, OCTOBER 29, 2021]

[A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF ERRONEOUSLY PAID TAXES SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN 2 YEARS FROM PAYMENT OF THE TAXES SUBJECT OF THE REFUND] [AN ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE BIR BEFORE ELEVATING THE CASE TO THE CTA]

Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)-Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 57 – City of Biñan filed a Petition for Review seeking the reversal of the previous Decision and Resolution of the Court’s First Division granting the refund or issuance of tax credit certificate (TCC) in favor of Respondent East West Banking Corporation. Respondent previously elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) its claim for refund of the capital gains tax (CGT) and documentary stamp tax (DST) erroneously paid in relation to its acquisition of real properties from its borrowers through Dacion En Pago and Extrajudicial Foreclosure. The issues left to be determined in the instant Petition was if the claim was timely filed, and whether all administrative remedies available to Respondent were properly exhausted. In ruling, the Court confirmed that Respondent filed its judicial claim before the CTA within the two (2)-year prescribed period reckoned from the date of payment of the taxes subject of this refund. Furthermore, Respondent was able to exhaust all administrative remedies accorded to it following the fact that an administrative claim was priorly filed with the BIR. In view of the foregoing, the Court En Banc found no reason to deviate from the First Division’s ruling. Thus, the Petition was DENIED, and the Petitioners were further ordered to REFUND or ISSUE A TCC to Respondent representing erroneously paid CGT and DST. [COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER OF REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICE NO. 57-CITY OF BIÑAN, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. EAST WEST BANKING CORPORATION, CTA EN BANC CASE NO. 2276, OCTOBER 28, 2021]