NIPPON EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP., v.

COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 185666
February 4, 2015
Facts:
Petitioner Corporation applied for a tax credit/refund based on section
112 of the Tax Code in the amount of P24,826,667.61 representing the value
of input VAT paid by the corporation in relation to sales which are attributable
to zero-rated sales. Petitioner corporation filed the administrative claim with
the with the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback
Center of the Department of Finance (OSSAC-DOF) on September 24, 2001.
Having no resolution from the OSSAC-DOF, petitioner corporation filed a
petition for review with the CTA on April 24, 2002. The CTA denied the calim
for tax credit/refund for petitioners failure to comply with the receipt and
invoicing requirements provided by the Tax Code for refund based on zerorated transactions.
Issues:
1. Did the CTA acquire jurisdiction over the controversy?
2. Is there a difference between ainvoicing requirements and receipt
requirements in zero-rated transactions?
Ruling:
1. No, the CTA did not acquire jurisdiction over the controversy. The
Supreme Court stated that strict compliance with the prescriptive
periods in claiming for refund of creditable input tax due or paid
attributable to any zero-rated or effectively zero-rates sales
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation,
Taganito Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and
Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue).
Petitioner Corporation has failed to comply with the 120+30 day
period, which is mandatory and jurisdictional, in filing its petition for
review. The 120 day period for the administrative office to act ended
on September 22, 2001, thus petitioner should have filed its petition
for review thirty days thereafter or on or before April 24, 2002.
2. 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 every sale, barter or exchange of
services. In other words, the VAT invoice is the sellers best proof of

the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is
the buyers best evidence of the payment of goods or services
received from the seller.