CTA affirms 2018 ruling granting Taganito partial VAT refund

THE Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) affirmed a December 2018 decision partially granting the tax refund claim of Taganito Mining Corp. concerning excess input value added tax (VAT) for 2014 worth P25.95 million.

In a seven-page resolution on April 12, the CTA special second division denied for lack of merit the separate motions for partial reconsideration filed by Taganito Mining and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

“Wherefore, finding no cogent reason to reverse the ruling in the assailed Decision, petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration with Manifestation and Comment to Respondent’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration posted on December 28, 201(8) and respondent’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed on December 20, 2018 are denied for lack of merit,” the CTA ruled.

The CTA on Dec. 6, 2018 partially granted Taganito’s initial P28.9 million tax refund claim of excess VAT attributable to zero-rated sales in 2014, saying only the amount of P25.95 million was properly documented.

The tax appellate court denied the motion of Taganito which had asked the court to reconsider the disallowances by allowing it to present new evidence through a new trial. The mining company claimed that it did not have enough time to go over the findings of the independent certified public accountant (ICPA).

“To come now to the Court and request for a new trial to present additional evidence that may possibly result in the grant of the entire amount claimed is without legal basis as the petitioner was already given ample opportunity to present evidence to support its cause of action,” the court said.

Under the Revised Rules of Court, the grounds for filing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration are fraud or mistake that could have aggrieved one of the parties’ rights, and newly discovered evidence and be supported by affidavits of merits.

The CTA said that while Taganito submitted an affidavit, it did not meet the two grounds for the motion for new trial and reconsideration. It also found in the affidavit that it sought to present additional evidence due to “mere oversight” as some documents were not included in the supporting documents submitted by the ICPA.

“This Court finds that this would constitute ‘forgotten evidence’ which petitioner would like to present only after obtaining a partial grant of its claim for refund,” the CTA said. “Forgotten evidence is not a valid ground for a new trial as held by the Supreme Court.”

In denying the motion for reconsideration of the BIR, the CTA said the motion is similar to reading a discussion or lecture on requirements for claiming refund. It also said the BIR did not specify alleged errors in the decision or clarified his points, aside from stating that the court erred in partially granting the taxpayer’s claim.

“The scant contents of respondent’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration which did not provide the details of his plea for reconsideration nor pointed out the specific errors allegedly made by the Court, fails to pass the above test, hence it is considered pro forma and deserves little or no consideration by this Court,” it said.

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas