G.R. Nos. 203547 and 203561 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VS. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION (FORMERLY MIRANT SUAL CORPORATION).[G.R. No. 203561] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VS. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION (FORMERLY MIRANT SUAL CORPORATION).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, TSC filed its VAT returns covering the four quarters of taxable year 2003 on April 24, 2003, July 25, 2003, October 27, 2003, and January 26, 2004, respectively. Subsequently, TSC filed amended quarterly VAT returns for the first, second, and fourth quarters of 2003 on July 25, 2003, August 19, 2003, and July 26, 2004, respectively. [6] On December 20, 2004, TSC filed with the BIR an administrative claim for refund in the aggregate amount of PHP 166,158,823.50 for its unutilized input VAT for taxable year 2003. [7] On April 22, 2005, without wa1tmg for the resolution of its administrative claim for refund or tax credit, TSC filed with the CTA Division a Petition for Review docketed as CTA Case No. 7230. It prayed for the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for its alleged unutilized input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods and services and importation of goods attributable to zero-rated sales for the first quarter of taxable year 2003 in the amount of PHP 67,257,025.75. [8] On July 22, 2005, TSC filed another Petition for Review docketed as CTA Case No. 7299, seeking the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for its alleged unutilized input VAT for the second, third, and fourth quarters of taxable year 2003 in the amount of PHP 98,631,797.75. Both cases were consolidated by the CTA in a Resolution, dated October 12, 2005. [9] Trial of these cases ensued. The Ruling of the CTA in Division In its Decision, [10] dated February 6, 2009, the CTA in Division denied the Consolidated Petitions for failure of TSC to establish that it derived sales from power generation qualifying it for VAT zero-rating. The dispositive portion of the CTA in Division Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for insufficiency of evidence. SO ORDERED.