CIR v. Vestas
Services Philippines, Inc.
G.R. No. 255085
March 29, 2023
FACTS:
VSPI is
a domestic corporation and registered as a VAT-Taxpayer. VSPI amended its
primary purpose to be able to engage in installation and construction services.
It entered into an Onshore Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract
with EDC Burgos Wind Power Corporation. It filed a letter-request for the
refund and/or issuance of a tax credit certificate with the BIR. It filed a
Petition for Review with the CTA Division, claiming for the refund or issuance
of a tax credit certificate in the amount of P41,6M, representing its alleged
accumulated and unutilized input VAT. It also alleged that since it has no
sales transaction other than those made to EDC Burgos, it accumulated an aggregate
unput VAT of P41.6M and that such input VAT credits have not been utilized or
charged by it against any of its output VAT liability. The CIR invoked the
burden on the part of VSPI to prove its entitlement to the claim for refund or
tax credit since taxes paid and collected are presumed to have been made in
accordance with the law and is thus, not refundable. In a Decision dated May
26, 2017, 16 the CTA Division initially dismissed VSPI's claim for refund for
lack of jurisdiction. It held that the BIR had 120 days from March 20, 2014,
the date when VSPI filed an administrative claim and presumably submitted its
complete documents, to decide on the claim for refund, or until July 18, 2014.
Since the BIR did not act on VSPI's claim, the latter had until August 18,
2014, the last day of the 30-day period, within which to file its judicial
claim. However, VSPI only filed its judicial claim on September 5, 2014, or 18
days after the lapse of the 30-day period. Since VSPI belatedly brought its judicial
claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate, the CTA has lost
jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not VSPI’s judicial claim for refund was timely filed with the CTA, pursuant
to Sec. 112 (C) of the Tax Code.
HELD:
Yes. The
CIR failed to object or comment on VSPI’s Supplemental Formal Offer of Evidence
and file a Memorandum where he could have opposed the admission of the
supplemental evidence. The failure to object to the offered evidence renders it
admissible, and the court cannot, on its own, disregard such evidence. If a
party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, it must so state in the
form of a timely objection and it cannot raise the objection to the evidence for
the first time on appeal. Because of a party’s failure to timely object, the
evidence offered becomes part of the evidence in the case. As a consequence,
all the parties are considered bound by any outcome arising from the offer of evidence
properly presented.
The CTA
is not governed strictly by the technical rules of evidence. Its admission of
the formal offer of supplemental evidence, without prompt objection from the
Commissioner, was thus justified. The CTA Division correctly admitted VSPI’s
supplemental evidence proving that it timely filed its judicial claim.
