Kepco Vs CIR

12.
KEPCO PHILIPPINES DORPORATION VS. CIR

G.R. NO. 181858 , NOVEMBER 24, 2010
FACTS:
Petitioner KEPCO Philippines Corporation (Kepco) is a VAT-registered independent

power producer engaged in the business of generating electricity. It exclusively sells
electricity to National Power Corporation (NPC), an entity exempt from taxes under
Section 13 of Republic Act No. 6395 (RA No. 6395).3
Kepco filed an application for zero-rated sales and subsequently approved
In the course of doing business with NPC, Kepco claimed expenses reportedly sustained
in connection with the production and sale of electricity with NPC, thus, paying input va
andt attributing the same to its zero-rated sales of electricity with NPC.
Afterwards, Kepco filed before CIR a claim for tax refund covering unutilized input VAT
payments attributable to its zero-rated sales transactions. It also filed a petition for
review before the CTA.
Respondent CIR averred that claims for refund were strictly construed against the
taxpayer as it was similar to a tax exemption
Petitioner argues that the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) does not require
the imprinting of the word zero-rated on invoices and/or official receipts covering zero-
rated sales.26 It claims that Section 113 in relation to Section 237 of the 1997 NIRC "does
not mention the requirement of imprinting the words zero-rated to purchases covering
zero-rated transactions."27 Only Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulation No. 7-95 (RR
No. 7-95) "required the imprinting of the word zero-rated on the VAT invoice or
receipt."28 "Thus, Section 4.108-1 of RR No. 7-95 cannot be considered as a valid
legislation considering the long settled rule that administrative rules and regulations
cannot expand the letter and spirit of the law they seek to enforce."
The CTA Second Division ruled that out of the total declared zero-rated sales
ofP3,285,308,055.85, Kepco was only able to properly substantiate P1,451,788,865.52
as its zero-rated sales. Only 44.19% of the validly supported input VAT payments being
claimed could be considered. The CTA Second Division likewise disallowed
the P5,170,914.20 of Kepcos claimed input VAT due to its failure to comply with the
substantiation requirement. ccordingly, the CTA Second Division partially granted
Kepcos claim for refund of unutilized input VAT
Kepco moved for partial reconsideration, but the CTA Second Division denied it
Kepco appeal to the CTA En Banc, but dismissed the petition and ruled that "in order
for Kepco to be entitled to its claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate
representing unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for taxable year
2002, it must comply with the substantiation requirements under the appropriate
Revenue Regulations, i.e. Revenue Regulations 7-95.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the word "zero-rated" should be imprinted on invoices and/or official

receipts as part of the invoicing requirement? WON non-compliance of invoicing
requirements should result in the denial of the taxpayers refund claim?
2. WON Section 4.108.1 of Revenue Regulation 07-95 does requires the word "TIN-
VAT" to be imprinted on a VAT-registered persons supporting invoices and
official receipts?
HELD:
1. Yes. The SC held that Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95 proceeds from the rule-making
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. The requirement is reasonable and is in accord with the efficient
collection of VAT from the covered sales of goods and services. The appearance of the
word "zero-rated" 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 word, a successful claim for input VAT is made, the government would be
refunding money it did not collect.
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. Unable to
submit the proper invoices, petitioner Panasonic has been unable to substantiate its
claim for refund.
Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-9534 neither expanded nor supplanted the tax code but merely
supplemented what the tax code already defined and discussed. In fact, the necessity of
indicating "zero-rated" into VAT invoices/receipts became more apparent when the
provisions of this revenue regulation was later integrated into RA No. 9337, 35 the
amendatory law of the 1997 NIRC
Evidently, as it failed to indicate in its VAT invoices and receipts that the transactions
were zero-rated, Kepco failed to comply with the correct substantiation requirement for
zero-rated transactions
Automatic denial of claim
2. Yes. The SC held that only VAT registered persons are required to print their TIN
followed by the word "VAT" in their invoice or receipts and this shall be considered as a
"VAT" Invoice. All purchases covered by invoices other than VAT Invoice shall not give
rise to any input tax.
Under the law, a VAT invoice is necessary for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or
properties while a VAT official receipt properly pertains to every lease of goods or
properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services
The SC distinguished an invoice from a receipt:
A "sales or commercial invoice" is a written account of goods sold or services rendered

indicating the prices charged therefor or a list by whatever name it is known which is
used in the ordinary course of business evidencing sale and transfer or agreement to sell
or transfer goods and services.
A "receipt" on the other hand is a written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in

money or other settlement between seller and buyer of goods, debtor or creditor, or
person rendering services and client or customer.
In other words, the VAT invoice is the sellers best proof of the sale of the goods or
services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyers best evidence of the payment of
goods or services received from the seller. Even though VAT invoices and receipts are
normally issued by the supplier/seller alone, the said invoices and receipts, taken
collectively, are necessary to substantiate the actual amount or quantity of goods sold
and their selling price (proof of transaction), and the best means to prove the input VAT
payments (proof of payment).46 Hence, VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be
confused as referring to one and the same thing. Certainly, neither does the law intend
the two to be used alternatively.

Kepco Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kepco Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kepco Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12.

KEPCO PHILIPPINES DORPORATION VS. CIR

Petitioner KEPCO Philippines Corporation (Kepco) is a VAT-registered independent

Kepco filed an application for zero-rated sales and subsequently approved

1. Whether the word "zero-rated" should be imprinted on invoices and/or official

Automatic denial of claim

The SC distinguished an invoice from a receipt:

A "sales or commercial invoice" is a written account of goods sold or services rendered

A "receipt" on the other hand is a written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in

You might also like