G.R. NO. 153866 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VS. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (PHILIPPINES).DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. [3] The Facts The CA quoted the facts narrated by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), as follows: As jointly stipulated by the parties, the pertinent facts x x x involved in this case are as follows: [Respondent] is a resident foreign corporation duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission to do business in the Philippines, with principal office address at the new Cebu Township One, Special Economic Zone, Barangay Cantao-an, Naga, Cebu; [Petitioner] is sued in his official capacity, having been duly appointed and empowered to perform the duties of his office, including, among others, the duty to act and approve claims for refund or tax credit; [Respondent] is registered with the Philippine Export Zone Authority (PEZA) and has been issued PEZA Certificate No. 97-044 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 66, as amended, to engage in the manufacture of recording components primarily used in computers for export. Such registration was made on 6 June 1997; [Respondent] is VAT [(Value Added Tax)]-registered entity as evidenced by VAT Registration Certification No. 97-083-000600-V issued on 2 April 1997; VAT returns for the period 1 April 1998 to 30 June 1999 have been filed by [respondent]; An administrative claim for refund of VAT input taxes in the amount of P28,369,226.38 with supporting documents (inclusive of the P12,267,981.04 VAT input taxes subject of this Petition for Review), was filed on 4 October 1999 with Revenue District Office No. 83, Talisay Cebu; No final action has been received by [respondent] from [petitioner] on [respondents] claim for VAT refund. The administrative claim for refund by the [respondent] on October 4, 1999 was not acted upon by the [petitioner] prompting the [respondent] to elevate the case to [the CTA] on July 21, 2000 by way of Petition for Review in order to toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period. For his part, [petitioner] x x x raised the following Special and Affirmative Defenses, to wit: [Respondents] alleged claim for tax refund/credit is subject to administrative routinary investigation/examination by [petitioners] Bureau; Since taxes are presumed to have been collected in accordance with laws and regulations, the [respondent] has the burden of proof that the taxes sought to be refunded were erroneously or illegally collected x x x; In Citibank, N.A. vs. Court of Appeals , 280 SCRA 459 (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that: A claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit/refund. Claims for tax refund/tax credit are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. This is due to the fact that claims for refund/credit [partake of] the nature of an exemption from tax. Thus, it is incumbent upon the [respondent] to prove that it is indeed entitled to the refund/credit sought. Failure on the part of the [respondent] to prove th