Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Atlas Consolidated Mining Development Corporation, petitioner versus

Commissioner on Internal Revenue, respondent

GR Nos. 141104 & 148763
Atlas Mining Development Corporation, an entity that is engaged in mining,
production and sale of mineral products appealed before the Bureau of Internal Revenue
for the claim of the refund or credits of the input VAT on its capital good being purchased
and on its zero-rated sales for two years, 1990a and 1992. But, no act was done by the
BIR thus making the petitioner held to a decision to file a petition for review to the Court
of Tax Appeals. Subsequently, upon the petitioners claim for such review, the same was
denied by the the CTA. This was done by CTA for the reason that the petitioner failed to
submit within the two-year prescriptive period, the 70% of the companys sales came
form exporting and that it also failed to file substantial evidences for the claiming of its
refund or credit.
And, after such reasoning by the court, the petitioner, Atlas contends that the
same court failed to consider the sales to PASAR and PHILPOS which is within
EPZA as zero-rated export sales and that the two-year prescription period should
commence immediately after the date of filing for the last adjustment return instead
of at every end of each quarter. It also claims that the attestation of an independent
CPA should prove for its claims.
Did the petitioners claim for the said refund or credit has duly substantiated its
petition with evidences which could suffice for the granting of its petitions?

The petitioners claim for review is denied by the court and thus the previous
decision by the court was affirmed. After an extensive investigation of the said
information claimed by Atlas as defense, the court was found to agree to such details but
still denied the petitioners claim for review. This is because of the failure for the
petitioner to establish and give evidences which are necessary for the approval of its
claims. And the request for re-opening the said case by Atlas was also denied for the
grounds that the non-presentation of the required documentary evidence before the BIR
and the CTA by its counsel does not constitute excusable negligence or mistake as
contemplated in Section 1, Rule 37 of the revised Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petitions for Review are hereby
DENIED, and the Decisions, dated 6 July 1999 and 15 September 2000, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 47607 and 46718, respectively, are herebyAFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.