Kepco Vs CIR Case Digest

Kepco vs.
CIR
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 Kepco’s claimed input VAT due to its
failure to comply with the substantiation requirement. ccordingly, the CTA Second Division partially granted Kepco’s 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 taxpayer’s 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 person’s 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 seller’s best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the
buyer’s 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 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kepco Vs CIR Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kepco vs.

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

The SC distinguished an invoice from a receipt:

You might also like