Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIR
524 SCRA 73, 103
GR Nos. 141104 & 148763, June 8, 2007
The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that CTA failed to consider
the following: sales to PASAR and PHILPOS within the EPZA as zero-rated export
sales; the 2-year prescriptive period should be counted from the date of filing of
the last adjustment return which was April 15, 1993, and not on every end of the
applicable quarters; and that the certification of the independent CPA attesting
to the correctness of the contents of the summary of suppliers’ invoices or
receipts examined, evaluated and audited by said CPA should substantiate its
claims.
ISSUE: Did the petitioner corporation sufficiently establish the factual bases for
its applications for refund/credit of input VAT?
HELD: No. Although the Court agreed with the petitioner corporation that the
two-year prescriptive period for the filing of claims for refund/credit of input
VAT must be counted from the date of filing of the quarterly VAT return, and that
sales to PASAR and PHILPOS inside the EPZA are taxed as exports because these
export processing zones are to be managed as a separate customs territory from
the rest of the Philippines, and thus, for tax purposes, are effectively considered
as foreign territory, it still denies the claims of petitioner corporation for refund
of its input VAT on its purchases of capital goods and effectively zero-rated sales
during the period claimed for not being established and substantiated by
appropriate and sufficient evidence.