COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.

MANILA ISSUE:
MINING CORPORATION 468 SCRA 571 (2005)
Whether or not MMC adduced sufficient evidence to prove its
For a judicial claim for refund to prosper, the party must not claim for refund of its input VAT for taxable year 1991.
only prove that it is a VAT registeredentity, it must
substantiate the input VAT paid by purchase invoices or official HELD:
receipts.
As export sales, the sale of gold to the Central Bank is zero-
Respondent Manila Mining Corporation (MMC), a VAT- rated, hence, no tax is chargeable to it as purchaser. Zero rating
registered enterprise, filed its VAT Returns for the year of 1991 is primarily intended to be enjoyed by the seller – MMC, which
with the BIR. MMC, relying on Sec. 2 of Executive Order (E.O.) charges no output VAT but can claim a refund of or a tax credit
581 as amended which provides that gold sold to the Central certificate for the input VAT previously charged to it by
Bank is considered an export sale which under Section 100(a)(1) suppliers. For a judicial claim for refund to prosper, however,
of the NIRC, as amended by E.O. 273, is subject to zero-rated if MMC must not only prove that it is a VAT registered entity and
such sale is made by a VAT-registeredperson, filed that it filed its claims within the prescriptive period. It must
an application for tax refund/credit of the input VAT it paid substantiate the input VAT paid by purchase invoices or official
from such year. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) receipts. It is required that a photocopy of the
failed to act upon MMC’s application within sixty (60) days from purchase invoice or receipt evidencing the value added tax paid
the dates of filing. MMC was then filed a Petition for Review shall be submitted together with the application. This MMC
against the CIR before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) seeking failed to do.
the issuance of tax credit certificate or refund. The CIR
specifically denied the veracity of the amounts stated in MMC’s
VAT returns and application for credit/refund as the same
continued to be under investigation. However, such was not
verified prompting MMC to file a “SUPPLEMENT
(To Annotation of Admission)” alleging that as the reply was not
under oath, “an implied admission of its requests arose” as a
consequence thereof. The CTA granted MMC’s Request for
Admissions and denied the CIR’s Motion to Admit Reply. The
CTA denied MMC’s claim for refund of input VAT for failure to
prove that it paid the amounts claimed as such for the year 1991,
no sales invoices, receipts or other documents as required
having been presented. Upon appeal of MMC to the Court of
Appeals (CA), it reversed the decision of the CTA and granted
MMC’s claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificates on
the ground that there was no need for MMC to present the
photocopies of the purchase invoices or receipts evidencing the
VAT paid and the best evidence rule is misplaced since this rule
does not apply to matters which have been judicially admitted.