Orica Philippines Inc. v. CIR
CTA EB NO. 2367
May 24, 2022
Doctrine:
It bears emphasis that there is nothing in RMO No. 53-98 that requires the submission of the complete documents enumerated therein for a grant of a refund or credit of input VAT. Indeed, a taxpayer's failure with the requirements listed under RMO No. 53-98 is not fatal to its claim for tax credit or refund of excess unutilized excess VAT.
Facts:
In his Motion, the CIR argues that a verification with the Accounts Monitoring Division of the BIR showed that petitioner has outstanding liabilities and that the issuance of tax credit certificate cannot be given due course until the said delinquency assessments have been resolved and paid. Respondent likewise claims that petitioner is not entitled to its claim for refund/tax credit for its non-compliance with Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 53-98, Annex B-1, specifically, the non-submission of Certification from BOC stating that petitioner did not file any similar claim covering the same period and non-submission of importation documents.
Issue:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted.
Ruling:
No. After careful examination and consideration of the instant Motion, it is noted that the arguments raised therein are mere reiteration of matters which have already been considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision. As regards respondent's contention that petitioner's claim for refund or tax credit should not be given due course in view of its outstanding liabilities in the aggregate amount of t 20,559,923.18, the same deserves scant consideration. It bears noting that a document showing that petitioner has no outstanding liabilities is not one of the documents required to be submitted for purposes of refund claim. Nevertheless, a perusal of the records show that petitioner was able prove that the said tax liabilities have already been settled, with the issuance by the BIR of the Certificate of Availment (Compromise Settlement) No. CAC201700003367 dated April 12, 2018.4 Verily, there is no merit in respondent's contention that petitioner still has outstanding liabilities.
