Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Kepco Vs Cir Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    jovifactor
    Kepco Philippines, an independent power producer, filed a claim for tax refund on unutilized VAT payments from zero-rated sales. The claim was denied for failing to provide substantiating invoices or receipts. Kepco argued invoices and receipts can be used interchangeably. The Supreme Court held that invoices and receipts cannot be used interchangeably under the law. Invoices substantiate the details of goods or services sold in a transaction while receipts substantiate payment was made for those goods or services. Both invoices and receipts are collectively needed to fully substantiate input VAT claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kepco Vs Cir Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    jovifactor
    1K views1 page
    Kepco Philippines, an independent power producer, filed a claim for tax refund on unutilized VAT payments from zero-rated sales. The claim was denied for failing to provide substantiating invoices or receipts. Kepco argued invoices and receipts can be used interchangeably. The Supreme Court held that invoices and receipts cannot be used interchangeably under the law. Invoices substantiate the details of goods or services sold in a transaction while receipts substantiate payment was made for those goods or services. Both invoices and receipts are collectively needed to fully substantiate input VAT claims.

    Original Description:

    Kepco vs Cir Case Digest

    Original Title

    Kepco vs Cir Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Kepco Philippines, an independent power producer, filed a claim for tax refund on unutilized VAT payments from zero-rated sales. The claim was denied for failing to provide substantiating invoices or receipts. Kepco argued invoices and receipts can be used interchangeably. The Supreme Court held that invoices and receipts cannot be used interchangeably under the law. Invoices substantiate the details of goods or services sold in a transaction while receipts substantiate payment was made for those goods or services. Both invoices and receipts are collectively needed to fully substantiate input VAT claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views1 page

    Kepco Vs Cir Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    jovifactor
    Kepco Philippines, an independent power producer, filed a claim for tax refund on unutilized VAT payments from zero-rated sales. The claim was denied for failing to provide substantiating invoices or receipts. Kepco argued invoices and receipts can be used interchangeably. The Supreme Court held that invoices and receipts cannot be used interchangeably under the law. Invoices substantiate the details of goods or services sold in a transaction while receipts substantiate payment was made for those goods or services. Both invoices and receipts are collectively needed to fully substantiate input VAT claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION VS.

    CIR

    FACTS:

    Petitioner KEPCO Philippines is a VAT-registered independent power producer engaged in


    the business of generating electricity. Kepco filed an application for zero-rated sales, which
    was approved. It filed a claim for tax refund covering the unutilized VAT payments attributable
    to its zero-rated sales transactions. The claim was denied. On appeal to the CTA, the court
    denied it for failure to comply with the substantiation requirement regarding the invoices or
    official receipts Kepco issued.

    Kepco lifted the issue to the Supreme Court arguing that under Section 113 (A) of the 1997
    NIRC, invoices and official receipts are used interchangeably for purposes of substantiating
    input VAT.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the invoices and official receipts can be interchangeably used

    HELD:

    No. 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.

    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).
    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.

    FACTOR, J.V.

    You might also like