As a result of the above developments, on April 18, 2005, petitioner filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Serve Supplemental Petition upon Respondent" with attached "Supplemental Petition for Review" praying that its payments be credited as full satisfaction of the assessment for deficiency income and expanded withholding; as partial satisfaction of the assessment for deficiency VAT; and to cancel and withdraw the unpaid portion of the deficiency VAT assessment pertaining to the disallowed input taxes of P2,4 71,822. 73. For his part, respondent filed his Answer on December 17, 2004, interposing the following Special and Affirmative Defenses: "3. On 5 November 2004 a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) was issued by respondent in response to the protest letter of petitioner dated 21 January 2004. The FDDA reduced the original assessment from P73,253, 776.11 to P6,044,814.17 broken as follows: Deficiency Income Tax Deficiency Value Added Tax Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax Penalties-Expanded Withholding Tax p 560,976.50 4,956,685.04 315,680.65 211,471.98 5 BIR Records page 4152, Pl,773,787 + PI06,584.01(payments made)= PI ,880,371.19 6 Paragraphs 16 and 17, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Rollo, page 153. 7 Paragraph 18, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Rollo, page 154. 8 BIR Records page 4152 9 BIR Records page 4152
DECISION CTA CASE Nos. 7078 Page 4 of 19 4. On 10 November 2004 and 19 November 2004, petitioner duly paid the deficiencies as follows: Deficiency Income Tax Deficiency Value Added Tax Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax Penalties-Expanded Withholding Tax p 560,014.84 1,773,787.18 315,680.65 211,471.98 The payments covered petitioner's liability as per the FDDA except for the deficiency Value-Added Tax (VAT), which was only partially paid, leaving a balance ofP3,076,313.85; 5. The specific issue with regards to VAT which was not covered by petitioner's payment is in connection with the input tax claimed from suppliers/sellers with invalid Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) or who are either non-VAT registered or unregistered VAT suppliers. Thus, aside from the aforementioned, all other issues raised by the petitioner, have been rendered moot and academic; 6. While it is true that petitioner's purchases were supported by what appear to be VAT official receipts/invoices, there is no provision of law that grants an automatic and absolute right that deems submitted VAT official receipts/invoices as irrefutably correct. Such appears to be the stand of petitioner in alleging that the findings of respondent after verification of these documents, that its suppliers/sellers have invalid Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) or are either non-VAT registered or unregistered suppliers, cannot override the actual documents shown and presented by petitioner. Such an argument is misplaced; 7. Under existing VAT regulations, claims for input tax credit should be supported by an invoice or receipt showing the information as required under the Tax Code. The rationale of this requirement is to furnish respondent the necessary details to process the claim, by verifying the data against official records. If the information is correct, then the claim is allowed. However,
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 19 pages?
- Fall '16
- BAL INCORPORATED