THE Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) affirmed the denial of the P24.9-million tax refund claim of Nokia (Philippines), Inc.
In a four-page resolution on Feb. 20, the court, sitting en banc denied for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration of Nokia for not raising “meritorious argument.”
“In sum, petitioner failed to raise meritorious arguments to warrant the reconsideration of the assailed Decision. Hence, the denial of the same is in order,” said the resolution penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Casteñeda, Jr.
Nokia is claiming refund or issuance of tax credit certificate allegedly representing its unutilized creditable input value-added tax (VAT) allocated to its zero-rated sales for 2012.
The court’s third division in October 2017, denied for insufficiency of evidence the petition of Nokia, saying that the company failed to establish that it is a VAT-registered entity.
The court en banc in its decision in August last year affirmed the decision and resolution of its division.
Nokia maintained that its alleged Certificate of VAT Registration, Exhibit P-34, should be considered by the court because it is a “certified faithful reproduction of its original and a public document which is self-authenticating.”
However, the appellate court affirmed that it cannot be considered, noting that the court in division did not commit error when it found that the evidence was not admitted since it was not identified by a competent witness during trial. The court in division also said that it was not a certified true copy as it was a “mere color-printed scanned copy.”
The court also said even granting that the evidence is a public document, which does not need to be identified, it will still be rendered inadmissible for not being a certified copy issued by a public officer with its custody, as stated in the Rules of Court.
“Hence, considering that petitioner’s Exhibit ‘P-34’ is not a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof, the same cannot be accorded any probative weight,” the court said.
According to the court, to be entitled for refund of excess of input VAT traced to zero-rated sales, the taxpayer should be VAT-registered and engaged in zero-rated sales. The input taxes should have been paid, are not transitional input taxes, and have not been applied against output taxes. The proceeds for the sales should also be accounted for in acceptable foreign currency in line with rules of the central bank.
The court also said that the input taxes cannot be directly attributable to the sales and are to be proportionately allocated based on sales volume, and the claim was filed within two years after the close of the quarter when the sales were made.
Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, Cielito N. Mindaro Grulla, Ma. Belem M. Ringpis-Liban, and Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena concurred in the decision while Presiding Judge Roman G. del Rosario, Associate Justices Catherine T. Manahan, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro dissented. Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino was on leave. — Vann Marlo Villegas
