Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 465 SCRA 308(2005)

PHIL GEOTHERMAL VS. CIR  FACTS: Petitioner is a resident foreign corporation icensed !" t#e Sec$rities and E%c#ange Co&&ission 'SEC( to engage in t#e e%poration) de*eop&ent and e%poitation of geot#er&a energ" and reso$rces in t#e P#iippines P#iippines.. Petitioner Petitioner t#en entered into a ser*ice ser*ice contract +it# t#e  ,ationa Po+er Corporation ',PC( to s$pp" stea& to t#e atter. atter. Petitioner !ied ,PC) Va$e Added Ta% 'VAT( co&p$ted at ten percent of t#e ser*ice fee c#arged on t#e s$pp" of stea&. ,PC did not pa" t#e VAT. To a*oid an" possi!e ta% deficienc")  petitioner re&itted VA VAT e-$i*aent to / of t#e fees recei*ed fro& ,PC. Petiti Petitioner oner fied fied an ad&ini ad&inistr strati ati*e *e cai& cai& for ref$nd ref$nd +it# +it# t#e 0$rea$ 0$rea$ of Intern Interna a Re*en$e Re*en$e.. According to petitioner) t#e sae of stea& to ,PC is a VAT1e%e&pt transaction $nder t#e Ta% Code. Petitioner cai&ed t#at Fisca Incenti*es Re*ie+ 0oard 'FIR0( Reso$tion ,o. 2132) appro*ed !" President A-$ino p$rs$ant to E%ec$ti*e Order ,o. 45)6 e%press" e%e&pted ,PC fro& VAT. Since respondent faied to act on t#e cai&) petitioner fied a petition to to t#e r$nning of t#e t+o1"ear prescripti*e period !efore t#e Co$rt of Ta% Appeas. Appeas. ISS7E: +#et#er petitioner8s s$pp" of stea& to ,PC is a VAT1e%e&pt transaction. : R7LI,G: Ta%ation9 ,ationa Po+er Corporation ',PC(9 It #as !een t#e a+&aers8 intention t#at t#e ,PC is to !e co&pete" ta% e%e&pt fro& a for&s of ta%es;!ot# direct and indirect.;  In Maceda *. Macaraig)
44>) t#at t#e s$pp" of stea& !" petitioner to ,PC is e%e&pt fro& VAT) petitioner #as ind$!ita!" esta!is#ed its !asis for cai&ing a ref$nd. Sa&e9 Sa&e9 Va$e Added Ta% 'VAT(9 For indirect ta%es ie VAT) t#e proper part" to -$estion or  see a ref$nd of t#e ta% is t#e stat$tor" ta%pa"er) t#e person on +#o& t#e ta% is i&posed !" a+ and +#o paid t#e sa&e e*en +#en #e s#ifts t#e !$rden t#ereof to an1ot#er.;T#at ,PC &a" #a*e rei&!$rsed petitioner t#e ?@ VAT is not a gro$nd for t#e denia of t#e cai& for ref$nd. T#e CTA o*erooed t#e fact t#at it +as petitioner +#o paid t#e VAT o$t of its o+n ser*ice fee. T#e erroneo$s pa"&ents of t#e VAT +ere on" discontin$ed +#en t#e 0IR iss$ed its R$ing ,o. A1 14> in fa*or of petitioner on Marc# 6) 44>. 0" t#en) petitioner #ad aread" re&itted a siBea!e a&o$nt of P54)53)226.D to t#e Go*ern&ent. T#e on" reco$rse of petitioner is t#e co&pete restit$tion of t#e erroneo$s pa"&ents of ta%es. T#e a&o$nt of ref$nd s#o$d #a*e !een  !ased on t#e VAT Ret$rns fied !" t#e ta%pa"er. #et#er ,PC #ad rei&!$rsed petitioner is not t#e concern of t#e CTA. It is soe" a &atter !et+een petitioner and ,PC. For indirect ta%es ie VAT) t#e proper part" to -$estion or see a ref$nd of t#e ta% is t#e stat$tor" ta%pa"er) t#e person on +#o& t#e ta% is i&posed !" a+ and +#o paid t#e sa&e e*en +#en #e s#ifts t#e !$rden t#ereof to anot#er. Petitioner #as t#e ega personait" to app" for a ref$nd since it is t#e one +#o &ade t#e erroneo$s VAT pa"&ents and +#o +i s$ffer financia" !" pa"ing in good fait# +#at it #ad !eie*ed to !e its potentia VAT ia!iit". Sa&e9 Sa&e9 Sa&e9 So$tio Inde!iti9 7nder t#e principe of so$tio inde!iti) t#e go*ern&ent #as to restore to t#e ta%pa"er t#e s$&s representing erroneo$s pa"&ents of ta%es.;7nder t#e  principe of so$tio inde!iti) t#e go*ern&ent #as to restore to petitioner t#e s$&s representing erroneo$s pa"&ents of ta%es. It is of no &o&ent +#et#er ,PC #ad aread" rei&!$rsed petitioner  or not !eca$se in t#is case) t#ere s#o$d #a*e !een no VAT paid at a. Sa&e9 Sa&e9 Sa&e9 T#e S$&&ar" of Pa"&ents and Officia Receipts iss$ed !" a s$ppier is not a reia!e !asis for deter&ining t#e VAT pa"&ents for said s$ppier;reiance s#o$d !e #ad on t#e VAT Ret$rns fied !" t#e ta%pa"er to deter&ine t#e act$a a&o$nt re&itted to t#e 0IR for t#e  p$rpose of ascertaining t#e ref$nd d$e.;T#e S$&&ar" of Pa"&ents and Officia Receipts iss$ed  !" a s$ppier is not a reia!e !asis for deter&ining t#e VAT pa"&ents of said s$ppier. T#e CTA gross" &isappreciated t#e e*idence and erroneo$s" conc$ded in t#is case t#at ,PC paid t#e VAT. T#e CTA s#o$d #a*e reied on t#e VAT Ret$rns fied !" t#e ta%pa"er to deter&ine t#e act$a a&o$nt re&itted to t#e 0IR for t#e p$rpose of ascertaining t#e ref$nd d$e. T#e  presentation of t#e VAT Ret$rns is considered s$fficient to ascertain t#e a&o$nt of t#e ref$nd. T#$s) $pon finding t#at t#e s$pp" of stea& to ,PC is e%e&pt fro& VAT) t#e CTA s#o$d #a*e ordered respondent to rei&!$rse petitioner t#e f$ a&o$nt of P54)53)226.D as erroneo$s"  paid VAT. P#iippine Geot#er&a) Inc. *s. Co&&issioner of Interna Re*en$e) D>6 SCRA 5?3'??6(