Cta 2D CV 09509 M 2019jan04 Ref

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY
SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
TECHNOGAS PHILIPPINES CTA Case No . 9509

MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, Members:
Petitioner,
CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson,
-versus- and
MANAHAN, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated:

REVENUE, JAN 0 4 2019
Respondent.
){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ){
RESOLUTION
MANAHAN, J. :
This resolves petitioner's Motionfor Reconsideration (ofthe

Decision dated 4 October 2018), 1 filed on October 19, 2018.
Despite notice,2 respondent failed to file his comment or
opposition. 3
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision

dated October 4, 2018, which denied petitioner's claim for
refund of capital gains ta){ (CGT) amounting to
Php19,283,040.00, arising from the sale of property and paid
for in 2004. Such sale of property was subsequently cancelled
in the year 2014. The Court found that petitioner's claim for
refund was filed out of time.
In its Motion, petitioner states that its right to receive a

refund for the CGT being claimed for refund is not premised on
Sections 204 and 299 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue
Code, as amended (NIRC), but on the principles of "unjust
enrichment" and "solution indebiti." Petitioner states that the
CGT previously paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
should be refunded because of the events that transpired (the
I Docket, Vol. II, pp. 570-582.

2 Docket, Vol. II, Resolution dated October 29, 2018, p . 584 .
3 Docket, Vol. II, Records Verification dated November 26, 2018 . ~
RESOLUTION
CT A Case No. 9509
Page 2 of4
cancellation of the sale of property) causing the collection of the

CGT to be unwarranted and bereft of legal basis. Petitioner
insists that the two-year prescriptive period should be counted
from the occurrence of the supervening event. Thus, in this
case, petitioner insists that the 2-year period should be counted
from the cancellation of the sale on December 23, 2014.
The Court disagrees. Sections 204 (C) and 229 of the NIRC
provide:
SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to

Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. - The
Commissioner may -
XXX XXX XXX
(C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally

received or penalties imposed without authority, refund
the value of internal revenue stamps when they are
returned in good condition by the purchases, and, in his
discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have
been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon
proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or
penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer filed in
writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or
refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax
or penalty: Provided, however, That a return filed showing
an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for
credit or refund.
SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or fllegally

Collected. -No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in
any court for the recovery of any national internal
revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or
illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed
to have been collected without authority, or of any sum
alleged to have been excessively or in any manner
wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has
been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or
proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax,
penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress.
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be

filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of
payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any te--
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 9509
Page 3 of4
supervening cause that n1ay arise after payment:

Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even
without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax,
where on the face of the return upon which payment was
made, such payment appears clearly to have been
erroneously paid. (Underscoring supplied)
Clearly, the claim for refund must be claimed ·within two

years from the date of payment of the tax, regardless of any
supervening event. Petitioner's position to reckon the
prescriptive period from the occurrence of the supervening
event would be "tantamount to overruling or supplanting an
express provision of the law." 4
Thus, the Court finds no merit in petitioner's motion, and

reiterates the Decision's ruling, as follows:
The 2-year period, therefore, cannot be stretched to

allow for other special circumstan.ces, when none has
been provided. Where the law speaks in clear and
categorical language, there is no room for interpretation.
There is only room for application. The Court may not
construe a statute that is free from doubt. Considering
the clear and explicit provision of Section 229 that
refunds must be claimed within two years after the date
of payment, regardless of any supervening cause that
may arise after such payment, relaxing the rule on the
mandatory nature of the 2-year prescriptive period for
reasons of equity would be tantamount to overruling or
supplanting the express provision of the law.
Thus, when the CGT was withheld and paid on

October 5, 2004, the 2-year period to file a claim for
refund has already started. The execution of the said
Compromise Agreement on December 4, 2014, and the
subsequent cancellation of the sale of property from
which the CGT arose, is precisely a "supervening cause
that occurs after payment" which should be disregarded
in determining the prescriptive period. This is in
accordance with the clear provision of Section 229 that
claims for refund must be filed within two years after the
date of payment of the tax, regardless of any supervening
cause that may arise after such payment.
4 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Electric Co., Inc., CTA EB No. 773, May 8,
2012.~
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 9509
Page 4 of4
Clearly, petitioner's claim for refund was filed out of

time and must be denied. (Citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of

the Decision dated 4 October 20 18) is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
...
c~ 7, /11~-4--_
CATHERINE T. MANAHAN
Associate Justice
I CONCUR:
~~~c.~~~~~·
JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.
Associate Justice

Cta 2D CV 09509 M 2019jan04 Ref

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cta 2D CV 09509 M 2019jan04 Ref

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cta 2D CV 09509 M 2019jan04 Ref

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION

TECHNOGAS PHILIPPINES CTA Case No . 9509

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated:

This resolves petitioner's Motionfor Reconsideration (ofthe

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision

In its Motion, petitioner states that its right to receive a

I Docket, Vol. II, pp. 570-582.

cancellation of the sale of property) causing the collection of the

SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to

XXX XXX XXX

(C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally

SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or fllegally

In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be

supervening cause that n1ay arise after payment:

Clearly, the claim for refund must be claimed ·within two

Thus, the Court finds no merit in petitioner's motion, and

The 2-year period, therefore, cannot be stretched to

Thus, when the CGT was withheld and paid on

Clearly, petitioner's claim for refund was filed out of

WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of

You might also like