SECOND DIVISION

DECISION
ABAD, J.:

PANASONIC COMMUNICATIONS
G.R. No. 178090
IMAGING CORPORATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES (formerly MATSUSHITA
BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES),
Petitioner,
Present:

This petition for review puts in issue the May 23,

2007 Decision[1] of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en
banc in CTA EB 239, entitled Panasonic Communications
Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, which affirmed the denial of petitioners
claim for refund.

Carpio, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus -

Brion,
Del
Castillo,
Abad,

The Facts and the Case

and
Perez, JJ
.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
d:
Respondent.

Petitioner Panasonic Communications Imaging

Corporation of the Philippines (Panasonic) produces and
exports plain paper copiers and their sub-assemblies, parts,
and components. It is registered with the Board of
Investments as a preferred pioneer enterprise under the
Omnibus Investments Code of 1987. It is also a registered
value-added tax (VAT) enterprise.

Promulgate
February 8,

2010
x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

From April 1 to September 30, 1998 and

from October 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999, petitioner
Panasonic generated export sales amounting to
1

US$12,819,475.15 and US$11,859,489.78, respectively, for

a total of US$24,678,964.93. Believing that these export
sales were zero-rated for VAT under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1)
of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code as amended
by Republic Act (R.A.) 8424 (1997 NIRC),[2] Panasonic paid
input VAT of P4,980,254.26 and P4,388,228.14 for the two
periods or a total of P9,368,482.40 attributable to its zerorated sales.

said the First Division, violates the invoicing requirements

of Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations
(RR) 7-95.[4]
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, on
January 5, 2007 petitioner Panasonic appealed the First
Divisions decision to the CTA en banc. On May 23, 2007
the CTA en banc upheld the First Divisions decision and
resolution and dismissed the petition. Panasonic filed a
motion for reconsideration of the en banc decision but this
was denied. Thus, petitioner filed the present petition in
accordance with R.A. 9282.[5]

Claiming that the input VAT it paid remained

unutilized or unapplied, on March 12, 1999 and July 20,
1999 petitioner Panasonic filed with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) two separate applications for refund or tax
credit of what it paid. When the BIR did not act on the
same, Panasonic filed on December 16, 1999 a petition for
review
with
the
CTA, averring
the inaction of the respondent Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (CIR) on its applications.

The Issue Presented

The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not
the CTA en banc correctly denied petitioner Panasonics
claim for refund of the VAT it paid as a zero-rated taxpayer
on the ground that its sales invoices did not state on their
faces that its sales were zero-rated.

After trial or on August 22, 2006 the CTAs First

Division rendered judgment,[3] denying the petition for lack
of merit. The First Division said that, while petitioner
Panasonics export sales were subject to 0% VAT under
Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1) of the 1997 NIRC, the same did not
qualify for zero-rating because the word zero-rated was
not printed on Panasonics export invoices. This omission,

The Courts Ruling

The VAT is a tax on consumption, an indirect tax that
the provider of goods or services may pass on to his
customers. Under the VAT method of taxation, which
isinvoice-based, an entity can subtract from the VAT
2

charged on its sales or outputs the VAT it paid on its

purchases, inputs and imports.[6] For example, when a seller
charges VAT on its sale, it issues an invoice to the buyer,
indicating the amount of VAT he charged. For his part, if the
buyer is also a seller subjected to the payment of VAT on his
sales, he can use the invoice issued to him by his supplier to
get a reduction of his own VAT liability. The difference in
tax shown on invoices passed and invoices received is the
tax paid to the government. In case the tax on invoices
received exceeds that on invoices passed, a tax refund may
be claimed.

zero. When applied to the tax base or the selling price of the
goods or services sold, such zero rate results in no tax
chargeable against the foreign buyer or customer. But,
although the seller in such transactions charges no output
tax, he can claim a refund of the VAT that his suppliers
charged him. The seller thus enjoys automatic zero rating,
which allows him to recover the input taxes he paid relating
to the export sales, making him internationally competitive.
[10]

For the effective zero rating of such transactions,

however, the taxpayer has to be VAT-registered and must
comply with invoicing requirements.[11] Interpreting these
requirements, respondent CIR ruled that under Revenue
Memorandum Circular (RMC) 42-2003, the taxpayers
failure to comply with invoicing requirements will result in
the disallowance of his claim for refund. RMC 42-2003
provides:

Under the 1997 NIRC, if at the end of a taxable

quarter the seller charges output taxes [7] equal to the input
taxes[8] that his suppliers passed on to him, no payment is
required of him. It is when his output taxes exceed his input
taxes that he has to pay the excess to the BIR. If the input
taxes exceed the output taxes, however, the excess payment
shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or
quarters. Should the input taxes result from zero-rated or
effectively zero-rated transactions or from the acquisition of
capital goods, any excess over the output taxes shall instead
be refunded to the taxpayer.[9]

A-13. Failure by the supplier to

comply with the invoicing requirements on
the documents supporting the sale of goods
and services will result to the disallowance
of the claim for input tax by the purchaserclaimant.

Zero-rated transactions generally refer to the export

sale of goods and services. The tax rate in this case is set at
3

If the claim for refund/TCC is based

on the existence of zero-rated sales by the
taxpayer but it fails to comply with the
invoicing requirements in the issuance of
sales invoices (e.g., failure to indicate the
TIN), its claim for tax credit/refund of VAT
on its purchases shall be denied considering
that the invoice it is issuing to its customers
does not depict its being a VAT-registered
taxpayer whose sales are classified as zerorated sales. Nonetheless, this treatment is
without prejudice to the right of the
taxpayer to charge the input taxes to the
appropriate expense account or asset
account subject to depreciation, whichever
is applicable. Moreover, the case shall be
referred by the processing office to the
concerned BIR office for verification of
other tax liabilities of the taxpayer.

registered taxpayers receipts or invoices to indicate only the

following information:
(1)
A statement that the seller is
a VAT-registered person, followed by his
taxpayer's identification number (TIN);
(2)
The total amount which the
purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the
seller with the indication that such amount
includes the value-added tax;
(3)
The date of transaction,
quantity, unit cost and description of the
goods or properties or nature of the service;
and
(4)
The name, business style, if
any, address and taxpayers identification
number (TIN) of the purchaser, customer
or client.

Petitioner Panasonic points out, however, that in

requiring the printing on its sales invoices of the word zerorated, the Secretary of Finance unduly expanded, amended,
and modified by a mere regulation (Section 4.108-1 of RR 795) the letter and spirit of Sections 113 and 237 of the 1997
NIRC, prior to their amendment by R.A. 9337.[12] Panasonic
argues that the 1997 NIRC, which applied to its payments
specifically Sections 113 and 237required the VAT-

Petitioner Panasonic points out that Sections 113 and

237 did not require the inclusion of the word zero-rated
for zero-rated sales covered by its receipts or invoices. The
BIR incorporated this requirement only after the enactment
of R.A. 9337 on November 1, 2005, a law that did not yet
exist at the time it issued its invoices.

But when petitioner Panasonic made the export sales

subject of this case, i.e., from April 1998 to March 1999, the
rule that applied was Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95, otherwise
known as the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations,
which the Secretary of Finance issued on December 9, 1995
and took effect on January 1, 1996. It already required the
printing of the word zero-rated on the invoices covering
zero-rated sales. When R.A. 9337 amended the 1997 NIRC
on November 1, 2005, it made this particular revenue
regulation a part of the tax code. This conversion from
regulation to law did not diminish the binding force of such
regulation with respect to acts committed prior to the
enactment of that law.

word, a successful claim for input VAT is made, the

government would be refunding money it did not collect. [14]
Further, the printing of the word zero-rated on the
invoice helps segregate sales that are subject to 10% (now
12%) VAT from those sales that are zero-rated. [15] Unable to
submit the proper invoices, petitioner Panasonic has been
unable to substantiate its claim for refund.
Petitioner Panasonics citation of Intel Technology
Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [16] is
misplaced. Quite the contrary, it strengthens the position
taken by respondent CIR. In that case, the CIR denied the
claim for tax refund on the ground of the taxpayers failure
to indicate on its invoices the BIR authority to print. But
Sec. 4.108-1 required only the following to be reflected on
the invoice:

Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95 proceeds from the rulemaking authority granted to the Secretary of Finance under
Section 245 of the 1977 NIRC (Presidential Decree 1158)
for the efficient enforcement of the tax code and of course its
amendments.[13] The requirement is reasonable and is in
accord with the efficient collection of VAT from the covered
sales of goods and services. As aptly explained by the
CTAs First Division, the appearance of the word zerorated on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales
prevents buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their
purchases when no VAT was actually paid. If, absent such

1.
The
name,
taxpayers
identification number (TIN) and address of
seller;
2.
Date of transaction;
3.
Quantity,
unit
cost
and
description of merchandise or nature of
service;
4.
The name, TIN, business style, if
any, and address of the VAT-registered
purchaser, customer or client;
5

5.
The word zero-rated imprinted
on the invoice covering zero-rated sales; and
6.
The
invoice
value
or
consideration.

problems and has accordingly developed an expertise on the

subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident
exercise of authority.[17] Besides, statutes that grant tax
exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the
taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Tax
refunds in relation to the VAT are in the nature of such
exemptions. The general rule is that claimants of tax refunds
bear the burden of proving the factual basis of their
claims. Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Therefore,
statutes that allow exemptions are construed strictly against
the grantee and liberally in favor of the government.[18]

This Court held that, since the BIR authority to

print is not one of the items required to be indicated on the
invoices or receipts, the BIR erred in denying the claim for
refund. Here, however, the ground for denial of petitioner
Panasonics claim for tax refundthe absence of the word
zero-rated on its invoicesis one which is specifically
and
precisely
included
in
the
above
enumeration. Consequently, the BIR correctly denied
Panasonics claim for tax refund.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of

merit.

This Court will not set aside lightly the conclusions

reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its
functions, is dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax