Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    Second Division: Republic of The Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon City

    Uploaded by

    batusay575
    This document is a resolution from the Court of Tax Appeals regarding its jurisdiction over a tax refund case filed by Taihei Alltech Construction (Phil.), Inc. against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Court determined that it does not have jurisdiction because the petitioner filed its judicial claim beyond the 120+30 day periods provided by law. Specifically, the petitioner should have filed before this Court by February 27 and May 22, 2014 based on the dates it filed its administrative claims for refund, but it did not file until July 10, 2019.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Second Division: Republic of The Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon City

    Uploaded by

    batusay575
    107 views6 pages
    This document is a resolution from the Court of Tax Appeals regarding its jurisdiction over a tax refund case filed by Taihei Alltech Construction (Phil.), Inc. against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Court determined that it does not have jurisdiction because the petitioner filed its judicial claim beyond the 120+30 day periods provided by law. Specifically, the petitioner should have filed before this Court by February 27 and May 22, 2014 based on the dates it filed its administrative claims for refund, but it did not file until July 10, 2019.

    Original Title

    CTA_2D_CV_10108_R_2020FEB03_REF

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a resolution from the Court of Tax Appeals regarding its jurisdiction over a tax refund case filed by Taihei Alltech Construction (Phil.), Inc. against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Court determined that it does not have jurisdiction because the petitioner filed its judicial claim beyond the 120+30 day periods provided by law. Specifically, the petitioner should have filed before this Court by February 27 and May 22, 2014 based on the dates it filed its administrative claims for refund, but it did not file until July 10, 2019.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    107 views6 pages

    Second Division: Republic of The Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon City

    Uploaded by

    batusay575
    This document is a resolution from the Court of Tax Appeals regarding its jurisdiction over a tax refund case filed by Taihei Alltech Construction (Phil.), Inc. against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Court determined that it does not have jurisdiction because the petitioner filed its judicial claim beyond the 120+30 day periods provided by law. Specifically, the petitioner should have filed before this Court by February 27 and May 22, 2014 based on the dates it filed its administrative claims for refund, but it did not file until July 10, 2019.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 6
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key issue is whether the Court of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction over the petitioner's claim for tax refund given when the judicial appeal was filed.

    The respondent filed a Motion for Early Resolution on the Issue of Jurisdiction, arguing that based on the facts presented, the court does not have jurisdiction as the judicial appeal was filed beyond the period allowed by law.

    The petitioner argues that Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 54-2014 should not be retroactively applied to its claim and that its claim was re-processed under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 1-2017, resulting in a denial on June 10, 2019, making its petition timely.

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    COURT OF TAX APPEALS


    QUEZON CITY

    SECOND DIVISION

    TAIHEI ALLTECH CTA CASE NO. 10108


    CONSTRUCTION (PHIL.),
    INC., Members:
    Petitioner,
    CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson,
    MINDARO-GRULLA, and
    -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, 11.

    COMMISSIONER OF Prom uIgated:


    INTERNAL REVENUE, FF~ 0 3 ZOZO
    Respondent.
    X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    RESOLUTION

    For resolution is respondent's Motion for Early Resolution


    on the Issue of Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, filed on
    October 11, 2019, with petitioner's Comment/Opposition (to:
    Respondent's Motion for Early Resolution on the Issue of
    Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court), filed on November 14,
    2019.

    In his motion, respondent moves for the early determination of


    this Court's jurisdiction considering that the issue of jurisdiction is not
    an evidentiary matter that will require trial to resolve the same. He
    maintains that on the face of the petition alone, the question of
    jurisdiction may easily be resolved .

    Respondent reiterates petitioner's allegations that the


    application for tax credit/refund was filed on September 30, 2013 for
    the period of July 1 to September 30, 2011, then on December 23,
    2013 for the period of October 1 to December 31, 2011. Assuming
    that the administrative claims for refund were filed on time,
    RESOLUTION
    CTA CASE NO. 10108
    Page 2 of 6

    respondent has 120 days or until January 28, 2014, and April 22,
    2014, respectively, within which to decide on the claim.

    Respondent invokes Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No.


    54-2014, which provides that if the administrative claim is not acted
    upon within 120 days, the inaction shall be deemed a denial.
    Accordingly, petitioner has 30 days from the lapse of 120 days or
    until February 27 and May 22, 2014, respectively, within which to file
    a judicial claim before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). In the instant
    case, the petition was filed only on July 10, 2019, therefore, the
    judicial claim was filed out of time.

    Respondent also contends that his subsequent denial is of no


    moment, considering that the denial letter has been rendered long
    after the lapse of the period within which the petitioner could have
    elevated the matter to this Court. Consequently, he avers that this
    Court has no jurisdiction over the instant Petition for Review.

    On the other hand, petitioner argues that RMC No. 54-2014


    should not be retroactively applied to its claim. Further, with the
    issuance of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 1-2017, petitioner's claim
    for refund was re-processed by respondent. Unfortunately, the claim
    was denied on June 10, 2019. Thus, its petition was timely filed
    before this Court.

    Pertinent to the resolution of the present case are Sections


    112(A) and (C) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of
    1997, as amended, which provide:

    "SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input


    Tax.-

    XXX XXX XXX

    {C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit


    of Input Taxes shall be Made.- In proper cases, the
    Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit
    certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred
    twenty (120) days from the date of submission of
    complete documents in support of the application filed in
    accordance with Subsection (A) hereof.
    RESOLUTION
    CfA CASE NO. 10108
    Page 3 of 6

    In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax


    refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the
    Commissioner to act on the application within the period
    prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within
    thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying
    the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred
    twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted
    claim with the Court of Tax Appeals."

    Pursuant to the above provisions, the Commissioner of Internal


    Revenue (CIR) has 120 days from the date of the submission of the
    complete documents in support of the application for tax
    refund/credit within which to grant or deny the claim. In case of full
    or partial denial by the CIR, the taxpayer's recourse is to file an
    appeal before this Court within 30 days from receipt of the decision
    of the CIR. However, if after the 120-day period, the CIR fails to act
    on the application for tax refund/credit, the remedy of the taxpayer is
    to appeal the inaction of the CIR to this Court within 30 days.

    In Silicon Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Intel Philippines


    Manufacturing_ Inc.) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 the
    Supreme Court held:

    "Whether respondent rules in favor of or


    against the taxpayer - or does not act at all on the
    administrative claim - within the period of 120
    days from the submission of complete documents,
    the taxpayer may resort to a judicial claim before
    the CTA.

    XXX XXX XXX

    The judicial claim shall be filed within a


    period of 30 days after the receipt of respondent's
    decision or ruling or after the expiration of the
    120-day period, whichever is sooner.

    Aside from a specific exception to the mandatory


    and jurisdictional nature of the periods provided by law,
    any claim filed in a period less than or beyond the
    120+30 days provided by the NIRC is outside the
    jurisdiction of the CTA." (Emphases and underscoring
    supplied)
    1
    G.R. No. 182737, March 2, 2016.
    RESOLLJTION
    CTA CASE NO. 10108
    Page 4 of 6

    Based on the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements, the 30-day


    period provided by law should be reckoned after the receipt of
    respondent's decision/ruling or after the expiration of the 120-day
    period, whichever is sooner. In addition, it is clear that any
    judicial claim filed in a period less than or beyond the said 120+30-
    day periods is outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

    Moreover, in the case of Rohm Apollo Semiconductor


    Philippines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,2 the Supreme
    Court reminded taxpayers that when the 120-day period lapses and
    there is inaction on the part of the respondent within the said period,
    the taxpayer must no longer wait for respondent to come up with a
    decision.

    In the instant case, counting from the filing of the


    administrative claims for refund and submission of supporting
    documents as alleged in the petition, which were on September 30,
    2013 and December 23, 2013, the end of the 120-day period is on
    January 28, 2014 and April 22, 2014, respectively. Hence, petitioner
    should have elevated the matter before this Court on February 27,
    and May 22, 2014, respectively. However, petitioner waited for
    respondent's decision, which it received on June 10, 2019. Following
    the foregoing provisions of the NIRC and the rulings of the Supreme
    Court, the 30-day period should have been reckoned from the
    expiration of the 120-day period and not on any other later date.
    Since the filing of the instant petition is on July 10, 2019, the claim
    ·was made beyond the 120+ 30 day periods, the same is outside the
    jurisdiction of this Court.

    Clearly, the Court determined the jurisdiction of this Court


    based on the relevant law and jurisprudence, and not on the
    retroactive application of RMC No. 54-2014. In this regard, it is
    likewise relevant to refer to the pronouncement in the case of
    Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. vs Commissioner of Internal Revenuel where
    the Supreme Court summarized the rules for claims for refund made
    prior to the issuance of RMC No. 54-2014 on June 11, 2014, to wit:

    "To summarize, the rule is that from the date an


    administrative claim for excess unutilized VAT is filed, a
    taxpayer has thirty (30) days within which to submit the
    documentary requirements sufficient to support his claim,

    2 G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015.


    3 G.R. No. 207112, December 8, 2015.
    RESOLUTION
    CTA CASE NO. 10108
    Page 5 of 6

    unless given further extension by the CIR. Then, upon


    filing by the taxpayer of his complete documents
    to support his application, or expiration of the
    period given, the CIR has 120 days within which to
    decide the claim for tax credit or refund. Should the
    taxpayer, on the date of his filing, manifest that he no
    longer wishes to submit any other additional documents
    to complete his administrative claim, the 120 day period
    allowed to the CIR begins to run from the date of filing.

    In all cases, whatever documents a taxpayer


    intends to file to support his claim must be completed
    within the two-year period under Section 112(A) of the
    NIRC. The 30-day period from denial of the claim or
    from the expiration of the 120-day period within
    which to appeal the denial or inaction of the CIR to
    the CTA must also be respected."

    Notably, Section 3(2) of RR No. 1-2017 also mandates that


    respondent should have decided on the claim within 120 days from
    the date of submission of complete documents, or from the date of
    filing of application, if the claimant-taxpayer did not submit additional
    documents.

    Accordingly, petitioner's allegation that respondent re-


    processed its claim for refund pursuant to RR No. 1-2017, and
    therefore, the counting of the 30-day period within which to file a
    judicial claim before this court reckoned from the date of receipt of
    respondent's denial letter, cannot be sustained.

    WHEREFORE, finding that the instant petition was not timely


    filed and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the same,
    respondent's Motion for Early Resolution on the Issue of
    Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court is GRANTED. Accordingly,
    the instant case is DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED.

    ;;2 .c. ~.....v~ 1/l


    JUANlTO C. CASTANEDA, JR.
    Associate Justice
    RESOLUTION
    CfA CASE NO. 10108
    Page 6 of 6

    CilJ;;- ~. M...;,lM.o ... G~


    '
    CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA
    Associate Justice

    You might also like