Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    G.R. No. 159593 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, vs. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Ann Caigas
    The Supreme Court denied the BIR Commissioner's petition to suspend procedural rules and raise new arguments on appeal. [1] Before the CTA, the BIR admitted MPC was entitled to a VAT refund as a registered taxpayer. [2] However, on appeal, the BIR argued for the first time that MPC was actually a public utility subject to franchise tax instead of VAT. [3] The Court ruled that parties cannot change their legal theory or raise new issues on appeal, as it would be unfair to the opposing party.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 159593 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, vs. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Ann Caigas
    68 views1 page
    The Supreme Court denied the BIR Commissioner's petition to suspend procedural rules and raise new arguments on appeal. [1] Before the CTA, the BIR admitted MPC was entitled to a VAT refund as a registered taxpayer. [2] However, on appeal, the BIR argued for the first time that MPC was actually a public utility subject to franchise tax instead of VAT. [3] The Court ruled that parties cannot change their legal theory or raise new issues on appeal, as it would be unfair to the opposing party.

    Original Description:

    CIR vs. Mirant

    Original Title

    Cir vs. Mirant

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the BIR Commissioner's petition to suspend procedural rules and raise new arguments on appeal. [1] Before the CTA, the BIR admitted MPC was entitled to a VAT refund as a registered taxpayer. [2] However, on appeal, the BIR argued for the first time that MPC was actually a public utility subject to franchise tax instead of VAT. [3] The Court ruled that parties cannot change their legal theory or raise new issues on appeal, as it would be unfair to the opposing party.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views1 page

    G.R. No. 159593 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, vs. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Ann Caigas
    The Supreme Court denied the BIR Commissioner's petition to suspend procedural rules and raise new arguments on appeal. [1] Before the CTA, the BIR admitted MPC was entitled to a VAT refund as a registered taxpayer. [2] However, on appeal, the BIR argued for the first time that MPC was actually a public utility subject to franchise tax instead of VAT. [3] The Court ruled that parties cannot change their legal theory or raise new issues on appeal, as it would be unfair to the opposing party.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    159593 registered taxpayer, but charged it with the burden of


    proving its entitlement to refund. However, before the
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    Court of Appeals, the BIR Commissioner, in effect
    REVENUE, vs. MIRANT PAGBILAO
    denied that the MPC is subject to VAT, making an
    CORPORATION
    affirmative allegation that it is a public utility liable,
    Doctrine: The courts have the power to relax or instead, for franchise tax. Irrefragably, the BIR
    suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a Commissioner raised for the first time on appeal
    case from their operation when compelling reasons so questions of both fact and law not taken up before the
    warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. tax court, an actuality which the BIR Commissioner
    What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would himself does not deny, but he argues that he should be
    merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the allowed to do so as an exception to the technical rules
    courts. of procedure and in the interest of substantial justice.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: It should be emphasized that the BIR Commissioner is


    invoking a suspension of the general rules of procedure
    MPC filed an application before the BIR for tax credit or an exception thereto, thus, it is incumbent upon him
    or refund of the aforementioned unutilized VAT paid to present sufficient cause or justifiable circumstance
    on capital goods. Without waiting for an answer from that would qualify his case for such a suspension or
    the BIR, MPC filed petition for review before CTA to exception.
    toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period for
    claiming a refund under the law. However, in the instant case, the conflict between the
    MPC and the BIR Commissioner could be hardly
    In its answer, BIR Commissioner admitted that the described as deeply seated and violent, it remaining on
    MPC is a VAT-registered taxpayer and further charged a professional level, no sufficient cause that would
    it with the burden of proving its entitlement to refund. warrant the suspension of general rules.
    CTA ruled in favor of MPC, aggrieved BIR elevated Moreover, this Court pointed out in the Sy case which
    the case before CA and identified grounds which were the court allows suspension of procedural rules, that
    totally new and were never raised before CTA. BIR the pertinent facts, i.e., the dates of actual celebration
    denied that the MPC is subject to VAT, making an of the marriage, issuance of the marriage certificate,
    affirmative allegation that it is a public utility liable, and issuance of the marriage license, were undisputed.
    instead, for franchise tax. The same cannot be said in the case at bar. That MPC
    Yet, CA affirmed in toto CTA’s ruling in favor of is a public utility is not an undisputed fact; on the
    MPC. Hence this petition. He argues that (1) The contrary, the determination thereof gives rise to a
    observance of procedural rules may be relaxed multitude of other questions of fact and law. It is a
    considering that technicalities are not ends in mere deduction on the part of the BIR Commissioner
    themselves but exist to protect and promote the that since the MPC is engaged in the generation of
    substantive rights of the parties; and (2) A tax refund is power, it is a public utility. The MPC contests this
    in the nature of a tax exemption which must be arguing that it is not a public utility because it sells its
    construed strictly against the taxpayer. He reiterates his generated power to NAPOCOR exclusively, and not
    position before the Court of Appeals that MPC, as a to the general public. It asserts that it is subject to VAT
    public utility, is exempt from VAT, subject instead to and that its sale of generated electricity to NAPOCOR
    franchise tax and, thus, not entitled to a refund of input is subject to zero-rated VAT.
    VAT on its purchase of capital goods and services. Substantial justice, in such a case, requires not the
    ISSUE: allowance of issues raised for the first time on appeal,
    but that the issue of whether MPC is a public utility,
    Whether or not procedural rules may be suspended. and the correlated issue of whether MPC is subject to
    HELD: VAT or franchise tax, be raised and threshed out in the
    first opportunity before the CTA so that either party
    No, as a general rule is that a party cannot change his would have fully presented its evidence and legal
    theory of the case on appeal. When a party deliberately arguments in support of its position and to contravene
    adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon or rebut those of the opposing party.
    that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted
    to change the same on appeal, because to permit him DISPOSITIVE PORTION.
    to do so would be unfair to the adverse party. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant
    There is a palpable shift in the BIR Commissioners Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision, dated 30
    defense against the claim for refund of MPC and an July 2003, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
    evident change of theory. Before the CTA, the BIR 60783, which affirmed in toto the Decision, dated 11
    Commissioner admitted that the MPC is a VAT- July 2000, of the CTA in CTA Case No. 5658, is
    hereby AFFIRMED.

    You might also like