SECOND DIVISION
|
KEPCO PHILIPPINES
CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 179961 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: January 31, 2011 |
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the May
17, 2007 Decision[1] of the
Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA), in
C.T.A. E.B. No. 186 entitled “KEPCO Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue,” which denied petitioner’s claim for refund or issuance
of tax credit certificate for the unapplied input value-added taxes attributable
to zero-rated sales of services for taxable year 1999, as well as its
Resolution, dated September 28, 2007, which denied the motion for
reconsideration of the said decision.
THE FACTS
Petitioner Kepco Philippines
Corporation (Kepco) is a domestic corporation duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the
Kepco alleged that for the taxable
year 1999, it incurred input VAT in the amount of P10,527,202.54 on its
domestic purchases of goods and services that were used in its production and
sale of electricity to NPC for the same period.
In its 1999 quarterly VAT returns filed with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) on
INPUT TAX
Exhibit 1999 Carried-over from This quarter Carried over previous quarter to
next quarter
A 1st qtr 100,564,209.14 4,804,974.70 105,369,183.84
B 2nd qtr 105,369,183.84 1,461,960.38 106,831,144.22
C 3rd qtr 106,831,144.22 2,563,288.00 109,394,432.22
D 4th qtr 109,394,432.22 1,696,979.46 111,091,411.68
_____________
TOTAL P10,527,202.54:[2]
Thus, on P10,527,202.54. Thereafter, on
On P860,340,488.96,
with the alleged input VAT of P10,527,202.54 directly attributable
thereto. The tax court held that Kepco
failed to comply with the invoicing requirements in clear violation of Section
4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations (R.R.) No. 7-95, implementing Section
108(B)(3) in conjunction with Section 113 of the 1997 NIRC.
In view of the denial of its motion for
reconsideration, Kepco filed an appeal via petition for review before the CTA En
Banc, on the ground that the CTA Second Division erred in not considering
the amount of P10,514,023.92 as refundable tax credit and in failing to
appreciate that it was exclusively selling electricity to NPC, a tax exempt
entity.
On May 17, 2007, the CTA En Banc
dismissed the petition, reasoning out that Kepco’s failure to comply with the
requirement of imprinting the words “zero-rated” on its official receipts resulted
in non-entitlement to the benefit of VAT zero-rating and denial of its claim
for refund of input tax. The decision
reads in part:
In sum, the Court En Banc finds no
cogent justification to disturb the findings and conclusion spelled out in the
assailed August 31, 2005 Decision and May 4, 2006 Resolution of the CTA Second
Division. What the instant petition
seeks is for the Court En Banc to view and appreciate the evidence in
their own perspective of things, which unfortunately had already been
considered and passed upon.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED
DUE COURSE and DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta agreed
with the majority that services rendered by a VAT-registered entity to the NPC,
a tax-exempt entity, were effectively zero-rated. He was likewise of the view that Kepco’s
claim could not be granted because it presented official receipts which were
not in sequence indicating, that it might have sold electricity to entities
other than NPC. But, he strongly dissented
on the outright rejection of Kepco’s refund claim for failure to comply with
the imprinting requirements. His
dissenting opinion states in part:
However, I dissent to the majority’s
finding that imprinting the term “zero-rated” as well as the BIR authority to
print or BIR Permit marker on duly registered Value Added Tax (VAT) official
receipts/invoices is necessary such that non-compliance would result to the outright
denial of petitioner’s claim.
Xxxx
Clearly,
the applicable provisions of the Tax Code does not require the word
“zero-rated” or the other information required by the majority in the
invoice/official receipt. The
“requirement” of imprinting the questioned information on the VAT invoice or
receipt can be found in Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 (The
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the VAT law). Then again, the said provision is merely a
regulation created for the sole and limited purpose of implementing an
otherwise very exact law.
Moreover, granting for the sake of
argument that the Revenue Regulations above cited may validly impose such
requirements, no provision allows the outright rejection of a refund claim as
penalty for a tax-payer’s failure to abide by the requirements laid down in the
said regulations.[5]
Kepco filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision but it was denied for lack of merit by the CTA En
Banc in its Resolution[6]
dated
Hence, Kepco interposes this petition
praying for the reversal and setting aside of the
GROUNDS:
(I)
THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS EN BANC COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT
RULED THAT PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO IMPRINT THE WORDS “ZERO-RATED” ON ITS VAT
OFFICIAL RECEIPTS ISSUED TO NPC IS FATAL TO ITS CLAIM FOR REFUND OF UNUTILIZED
INPUT TAX CREDITS.
(II)
PETITIONER HAS SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN THAT IT IS RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED TO A
REFUND OR ISSUANCE OF TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE IN THE AMOUNT OF PHP10,514,023.92.[7]
From the
foregoing arguments, the principal issue to be resolved is whether Kepco’s
failure to imprint the words “zero-rated” on its official receipts issued to
NPC justifies an outright denial of its claim for refund of unutilized input
tax credits.
Kepco
contends that the provisions of the 1997 Tax Code, specifically Section 113 in
relation to Section 237, do not mention the mandatory requirement of imprinting
the words “zero-rated” to purchases covering zero-rated transactions. The only provision which requires the
imprinting of the word “zero-rated” on VAT invoice or official receipt is
Section 4.108-1 of R.R. No. 7-95. Kepco
argues that the condition imposed by the said administrative issuance should not
be controlling over Section 113 of the 1997 Tax Code, “considering the
long-settled rule that administrative rules and regulations cannot expand the
letter and spirit of the law they seek to enforce.”
Kepco
further argues that there is no law or regulation which imposes automatic
denial of taxpayer’s refund claim for failure to comply with the invoicing
requirements. No jurisprudence sanctions
the same, not even the Atlas case,[8]
cited by the CTA En Banc. According to Kepco, although it agrees with the
CTA ruling that administrative issuances, like BIR regulations, requiring an
imprinting of “zero-rated” on zero-rating transactions should be strictly
complied with, it opposes the outright denial of refund claim for
non-compliance thereof. It insists that
such automatic denial is too harsh a penalty and runs counter to the doctrine
of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 of the New Civil Code.
The CIR, in
his Comment,[9]
counters that Kepco is not entitled to a tax refund because it was not able to
substantiate the amount of P10,514,023.92 representing zero-rated
transactions for failure to submit VAT official receipts and invoices imprinted
with the wordings “zero-rated” in violation of Section 4.108-1 of R.R. 7-95.
The petition is bereft of merit.
The pertinent laws
governing the present case is Section 108(B)(3) of the NIRC of 1997 in relation
to Section 13 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6395 (The Revised NPC Charter),
as amended by Presidential Decree (P.D.) Nos. 380 and 938, which provide
as follows:
Sec. 108. Value-added Tax on
(A)
Rate
and Base of Tax. – x x x
(B)
Transactions
Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. – The following services performed in the
x
x x
(3)
Services rendered to persons or entities whose exemption under special laws or
international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory effectively
subjects the supply of such services to zero percent (0%) rate;
x x x
Sec. 13. Non-profit Character of the Corporation;
Exemption from All Taxes, Duties, Fees, Imposts and Other Charges by the
Government and Government Instrumentalities. The Corporation shall be non-profit and
shall devote all its return from its capital investment as well as excess
revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay
its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective
implementation of the policy enunciated in Section One of this Act, the Corporation,
including its subsidiaries, is hereby declared exempt from the payment of all
forms of taxes, duties, fees, imposts as well as costs and service fees
including filing fees, appeal bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or
administrative proceedings.
Based
on the afore-quoted provisions, there is no doubt that NPC is an entity with a
special charter and exempt from payment of all forms of taxes, including
VAT. As such, services rendered by any
VAT-registered person/entity, like Kepco, to NPC are effectively subject to
zero percent (0%) rate.
For the effective zero rating of such services, however,
the VAT-registered taxpayer must comply with invoicing requirements under
Sections 113 and 237 of the 1997 NIRC as implemented by Section 4.108-1 of R.R.
No. 7-95, thus:
Sec.
113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons. –
(A) Invoicing Requirements. – A VAT-registered person shall, for every sale, issue an invoice or receipt. In addition to the
information required under Section 237, the following information shall be
indicated in the invoice or receipt:
(1) A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person,
followed by his taxpayer’s identification number; and
(2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated
to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the
value-added tax.
(B)
Accounting Requirements. – Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 233, all
persons subject to the value-added tax under Sections 106 and 108 shall, in
addition to the regular accounting records required, maintain a subsidiary
sales journal and subsidiary purchase journal on which the daily sales and
purchases are
recorded. The subsidiary journals shall contain such information as may be
required by the Secretary of Finance.[10]
(Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 237.
Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. – All persons subject to an
internal revenue tax shall, for each sale or transfer of merchandise or for
services rendered valued at Twenty-five pesos (P25.00) or more, issue
duly registered receipts or sales or commercial invoices, prepared at least in
duplicate, showing the date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description
of merchandise or nature of service: Provided, however, That in the case of sales,
receipts or transfers in the amount of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) or
more, or regardless of amount, where the sale or transfer is made by a person
liable to value-added tax to another person also liable to value-added tax; or
where the receipt is issued to cover payment made as rentals, commissions,
compensations or fees, receipts or invoices shall be issued which shall show
the name, business style, if any, and address of the purchaser, customer or
client; Provided, further, That where the purchaser is a VAT-registered person,
in addition to the information herein required, the invoice or receipt shall
further show the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the purchaser.
The
original of each receipt or invoice shall be issued to the purchaser, customer
or client at the time the transaction is effected, who, if engaged in business
or in the exercise of profession, shall keep and preserve the same in his place
of business for a period of three (3) years from the close of the taxable year
in which such invoice or receipt was issued, while the duplicate shall be kept
and preserved by the issuer, also in his place of business, for a like period.
The
Commissioner may, in meritorious cases, exempt any person subject to an
internal revenue tax from compliance with the provisions of this Section.[11]
Section 4.108-1.
Invoicing Requirements.
– All VAT-registered persons shall, for every sale or lease of goods or
properties or services, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial
invoices which must show:
1.
The name, TIN and address of seller;
2.
Date of transaction;
3.
Quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service;
4.
The name, TIN, business style, if any, and address of the VAT-registered
purchaser, customer or client;
5. The word "zero-rated" imprinted on the invoice covering zero-rated sales;
6.
The invoice value or consideration.
In the case of sale of real property subject to VAT and
where the zonal or market value is higher than the actual consideration, the
VAT shall be separately indicated in the invoice or receipt.
Only
VAT-registered persons are required to print their TIN followed by the word
"VAT" in their invoices or receipts and this shall be considered as
"VAT Invoice." All purchases covered by
invoices other than "VAT Invoice" shall not give rise to any input
tax.
If the taxable person is also engaged in exempt operations,
he should issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable and exempt
operations. A "VAT Invoice" shall be issued only for sales of goods,
properties or services subject to VAT imposed in Sections 100 and 102 of the
code.
The invoice or receipt shall be prepared at least in
duplicate, the original to be given to the buyer and the duplicate to be
retained by the seller as part of his accounting records. (Emphases supplied)
Also, as
correctly noted by the CTA En Banc, in Kepco’s approved
Application/Certificate for Zero Rate issued by the CIR on January 19, 1999,
the imprinting requirement was likewise specified, viz:
Valid only for sale of services
from
Note: Zero-Rated Sales must be indicated in the
invoice/receipt.[12]
Indeed, it
is the duty of Kepco to comply with the requirements, including the imprinting
of the words “zero-rated” in its VAT official receipts and invoices in order for
its sales of electricity to NPC to qualify for zero-rating.
It must be
emphasized that the requirement of imprinting the word “zero-rated” on the
invoices or receipts under Section 4.108-1 of R.R. No. 7-95 is mandatory as
ruled by the CTA En Banc, citing Tropitek International, Inc. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[13]
In Kepco Philippines Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[14]
the CTA En Banc explained the rationale behind such requirement in this wise:
The imprinting
of “zero-rated” is necessary to distinguish sales subject to 10% VAT, those
that are subject to 0% VAT (zero-rated) and exempt sales, to enable the Bureau
of Internal Revenue to properly implement and enforce the other provisions of
the 1997 NIRC on VAT, namely:
1. Zero-rated sales [Sec. 106(A)(2) and Sec.
108(B)];
2. Exempt transactions [Sec. 109] in
relation to Sec. 112(A);
3. Tax Credits [Sec. 110]; and
4. Refunds or tax credits of input tax [Sec.
112]
x x x
Records
disclose, as correctly found by the CTA that Kepco failed to substantiate the
claimed zero-rated sales of P10,514,023.92. The wordings “zero-rated sales” were not
imprinted on the VAT official receipts presented by Kepco (marked as Exhibits S
to S-11) for taxable year 1999, in clear violation of Section 4.108-1 of R.R.
No. 7-95 and the condition imposed under its approved Application/Certificate
for Zero-rate as well.
Kepco’s
claim that Section 4.108-1 of R.R. 7-95 expanded the letter and spirit of
Section 113 of 1997 Tax Code, is unavailing.
Indubitably, said revenue regulation is merely a precautionary measure
to ensure the effective implementation of the Tax Code. It was not used by the CTA to expound the
meaning of Sections 113 and 237 of the NIRC. As a matter of fact, the provision of Section
4.108-1 of R.R. 7-95 was incorporated in Section 113 (B)(2)(c) of R.A. No.
9337,[15]
which states that “if the sale is subject
to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the term ‘zero-rated sale’ shall be
written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt.” This, in effect, and as correctly concluded
by the CIR, confirms the validity of the imprinting requirement on VAT invoices
or official receipts even prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9337 under the
principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by reenactment.
Quite
significant is the ruling handed down in the case of Panasonic
Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, [16]
to wit:
Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95 proceeds from the rule-making
authority granted to the Secretary of Finance under Section 245 of the 1977
NIRC (Presidential Decree 1158) for the efficient enforcement of the tax code
and of course its amendments. The
requirement is reasonable and is in accord with the efficient collection of VAT
from the covered sales of goods and services. As aptly explained by the CTA’s
First Division, the appearance of the word "zero-rated" on the face
of invoices covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from falsely claiming
input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid. If, absent such
word, a successful claim for input VAT is made, the government would be
refunding money it did not collect.
Further, the printing of the word "zero-rated" on
the invoice helps segregate sales that are subject to 10% (now 12%) VAT from
those sales that are zero-rated. Unable to submit the proper invoices,
petitioner Panasonic has been unable to substantiate its claim for refund.
To bolster its claim for tax refund or credit, Kepco
cites the case of Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue.[17] Kepco’s reliance on the said case is
misplaced because the factual milieu there is quite different from that of the case
at bench. In the Intel case, the
claim for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate was denied due to
the taxpayer’s failure to reflect or indicate in the sales invoices the BIR
authority to print. The Court held that the
BIR authority to print was not one of the items required by law or BIR
regulation to be indicated or reflected in the invoices or receipts, hence, the
BIR erred in denying the claim for refund.
In the present case, however, the principal ground for the denial was the absence of the word “zero-rated” on the
invoices, in clear violation of the invoicing requirements under Section
108(B)(3) of the 1997 NIRC, in conjunction with Section 4.108-1 of R.R. No.
7-95.
Regarding Kepco’s
contention, that non-compliance with the requirement of invoicing would only
subject the non-complying taxpayer to penalties of fine and imprisonment under
Section 264 of the Tax Code, and not to the outright denial of the claim for
tax refund or credit, must likewise fail.
Section 264 categorically provides for penalties in case of “Failure or Refusal to
Issue Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices, Violations related to the
Printing of such Receipts or Invoices and Other Violations,” but not to
penalties for failure to comply with the requirement of invoicing. As recently held in Kepco Philippines
Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[18]
“Section 264 of the 1997 NIRC was not intended to excuse the compliance of the
substantive invoicing requirement needed to justify a claim for refund on input
VAT payments.”
Thus, for Kepco’s failure to
substantiate its effectively zero-rated sales for the taxable year 1999, the
claimed P10,527,202.54 input VAT cannot be refunded.
Indeed,
in a string of recent decisions on this matter, to wit: Panasonic
Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue,[19]
J.R.A. Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[20]
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Philippines Corp. (formerly Hitachi
Computer Products (Asia) Corporations) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[21] and Kepco
Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[22] this Court has consistently held that failure
to print the word “zero-rated” on the invoices or receipts is fatal to a claim
for refund or credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales.
Contrary to
Kepco’s view, the denial of its claim for refund of input tax is not a harsh
penalty. The invoicing requirement is
reasonable and must be strictly complied with, as it is the only way to
determine the veracity of its claim.
Well-settled
in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the
nature of a claim for exemption and the law is construed in strictissimi
juris against the taxpayer. The
pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi
scrutinized and must be duly proven.[23]
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 61-71.
Penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova with Associate Justices
Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy and Olga
Palanca-Enriquez, concurring. Presiding
Justice Ernesto D. Acosta with concurring and dissenting opinion.
[2]
[3] Annex C, Petition, id. at 78-90.
[4] Annex B, Petition, id. at 71.
[5] Annex B, Petition, id. at. 74-75.
[6] Annex A, Petition, id. at 51-53.
[7]
[8] Atlas Consolidated Mining &
Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 376 Phil. 495 (1999).
[9] Dated
[10] The provision, as
amended by RA 9337, now reads:
Section 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-registered
Persons. –
(A) Invoicing Requirements. – A VAT-registered person shall issue:
(1) A VAT invoice for every sale, barter or exchange of goods and
properties; and
(2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and
for every sale, barter or exchange of services.
(B) Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VAT Official Receipt. –
The following information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official
receipt:
(1) A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by
his taxpayer’s identification number (TIN);
(2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to
the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax;
Provided, That:
(a) The amount of the tax shall be shown as a separate item in the
invoice or receipt;
(b) If the sale is exempt from the value-added tax, the term
"VAT-exempt sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the
invoice or receipt;
(c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the
term "zero-rated sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the
invoice or receipt;
(d) If the sale involves goods, properties or services some of which
are VAT zero-rated or VAT-exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate
the breakdown of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated
components, and the calculation of the value-added tax on each portion of the
sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt; Provided, That the seller may
issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated
components of the sale.
(3) The date of the transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of
the goods or properties or nature of the service; and
(4) In the case of sales in the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000)
or more where the sale or transfer is made to a VAT-registered person, the
name, business style, if any, address and taxpayer identification number (TIN)
of the purchaser, customer or client.
(C) Accounting Requirements. – Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 233, all persons subject to the value-added tax under Sections 106 and
108 shall, in addition to the regular accounting records required, maintain a
subsidiary sales journal and subsidiary purchase journal on which the daily
sales and purchases are recorded. The subsidiary journals shall contain such
information as may be required by the Secretary of Finance.
(D) Consequence of Issuing Erroneous VAT Invoice or VAT Official
Receipt. –
(1) If a person who is not a VAT-registered person issues an invoice or
receipt showing his Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) followed by the word "VAT":
(a) The issuer shall, in addition to any liability to other percentage
taxes, be liable to:
(i) The tax imposed in Section 106 or 108 without the benefit of any
input tax credit; and
(ii) A 50% surcharge under Section 248 (B) of this Code;
(b) The VAT shall, if the other requisite information required under
Subsection (B) hereof is shown on the invoice or receipt, be recognized as an
input tax credit to the purchaser under Section 110 of this Code.
(2) If a
VAT-registered person issues a VAT invoice or VAT official receipt for a
VAT-exempt transaction, but fails to display prominently on the invoice or
receipt the term "VAT-exempt
(E) Transitional Period. – Notwithstanding Section (B)
hereof, taxpayers may continue to issue VAT invoices and VAT official receipts
for the period
[11] The provision, as amended by R.A. 9337, now reads:
Sec. 237. Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. – All
persons subject to an internal revenue tax shall, for each sale or transfer of
merchandise or for services rendered valued at Twenty-five pesos (P25.00)
or more, issue duly registered receipts or sale or commercial invoices,
prepared at least in duplicate, showing the date of transaction, quantity, unit
cost and description of merchandise or nature of service: Provided, however,
That where the receipt is issued to cover payment made as rentals, commissions,
compensations or fees, receipts or invoices shall be issued which shall show
the name, business style, if any, and address of the purchaser, customer or
client.
The original of each receipt or invoice shall be issued to the
purchaser, customer or client at the time the transaction is effected, who, if
engaged in business or in the exercise of profession, shall keep and preserve
the same in his place of business for a period of three (3) years from the
close of the taxable year in which such invoice or receipt was issued, while
the duplicate shall be kept and preserved by the issuer, also in his place of
business, for a like period.
The Commissioner may, in meritorious cases, exempt any person subject
to an internal revenue tax from compliance with the provisions of this Section.
[12] Annex B of Petition, rollo, p. 66.
[13] CTA Case Nos. 6422 & 6499,
[14] CTA E.B. Case No. 107,
[15] An Act Amending Sections 27, 28, 34, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 148, 151, 236, 237, and 288 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, As Amended, and for Other Purposes, which took effect on November 1, 2005.
[16] G.R. No. 178090,
[17] G.R.
No. 166732,
[18] G.R.
No. 181858,
[19] G.R. No. 178090,
[22] G.R.
No. 181858,
[23] Atlas Consolidated Mining and
Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008,
456 SCRA 150, 163.