Petitioner Philippine Geothermal Production Company, Inc.

(PGPCI)
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
CTA Case No. 9633 (October 28, 2020)

FACTS:

 Petitioner PGPCI seeks the refund of its alleged overpaid unutilized input taxes for the
taxable year (TY) 2015 in the amount of P24,548,041.82.
 The BIR issued a letter to the BOC informing the latter the grant and allowance of
petitioner’s claim up to the amount of P3,589,914.20 only.
 Unsatisfied with the BIR’s decision, the petitioner filed this present petition.
 Petitioner argues that as an RE Developer, it is subject to zero rated VAT on the local
purchases under RA 9513 in relation to Sections 108 (B) (7) and 112 of the NIRC.
 Respondent BIR invokes the case of Coral Bay Nickel Corporation v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (Coral Bay) wherein the Supreme Court ruled for the disallowance of
the refund of unutilized input VAT, resulting from supposedly VAT zero rated purchases.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund for its unutilized input taxes for all
quarters of TY 2015 in the full amount of P P24,548,041.82.

RULING: YES. The petitioner is entitled to a refund for its unutilized input taxes but not in
the full amount of P24,548,041.82.

 Respondent’s reliance on Coral Bay is misplaced.

 In Coral Bay, it becomes clear, that in cases wherein VAT is shifted to the taxpayer who
enjoyed a zero VAT preference, the proper recourse of the former is to claim from its
suppliers the amount of VAT erroneously shifted by it.
 Petitioner, as an RE Developer, is governed by the provisions of RA 9513.
 Under said law, petitioner’s zero rated purchases are only to be limited to those
necessary for the development, construction and installation of its plant
facilities.
 However, the sources of input VAT in this case are “local regular purchases”
consisting of office supplies, utilities, and communication expenses for the
operation of the plant facilities.
 Furthermore, the enjoyment of zero rating on petitioner’s purchases are, as stated,
limited only to local supplies but not to international purchases.

 After careful examination of the records, the petitioner has a total valid input VAT of
P22,769,549.78.

 However, the same is not entirely attributable to zero rated sales since petitioner also
had vatable sales.

 It has been allocated based on the volume of total sales which resulted to total valid
input VAT amounting to P13,619,625.28.

 Hence, petitioner is entitled to P10,029,711.08, after taking into consideration

the BIR’s partial grant of its claim.