Case Digest (G.R. No. 193625)
Facts:
Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals - En Banc and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 193625, August 30, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Martires, J., writing for the Court.Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. (AICHI) is a VAT-registered Philippine corporation and BOI-registered producer. On 26 September 2002 AICHI filed with the BIR a combined administrative claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificates for unutilized input VAT (third and fourth quarters of 2000 and all four quarters of 2001), originally for P18,030,547.77 (later amended). The BIR did not act on the claim within the statutory period. Four days after filing the administrative claim, on 30 September 2002, AICHI filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division.
The CTA Second Division tried the case on the merits and, on 20 March 2009, partially granted AICHI's petition ordering refund/issuance of a tax credit certificate in the reduced amount of P6,991,320.40 for unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, while denying other portions for lack of proof (e.g., purchases of capital goods and BOI certifications). The CIR moved for reconsideration; the CTA Division denied the motion. The CIR appealed to the CTA En Banc.
The CTA En Banc, by Decision dated 18 February 2010 (and Resolution of 20 July 2010), affirmed the CTA Division, holding that simultaneous filing of administrative and judicial claims within the two-year prescriptive period was permissible. The CIR and AICHI filed motions for reconsideration to the CTA En Banc; the CIR’s motion was denied on the merits and AICHI’s was denied as late. On 24 September 2010 AICHI, through new counsel, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court alleging (1) its motion for reconsideration was timely; (2) in any event the CTA En Banc should have considered it because of former counsel’s gross negligence; and (3) it was entitled to refund as shown by a BOI certification attached during appeal.
In opposition the CIR argued (a) AICHI invoked the wrong remedy before the Supreme Court (should have filed Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari pursuant to R.A. No. 9282 and the Revised CTA Rules); (b) AICHI failed to timely seek reconsideration before the CTA Division; and (c) the BOI certification presented only on appeal was inadmissible and insufficient. The parties litigated whether AICHI’s judicial claim was ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did AICHI adopt the correct procedural remedy to assail the CTA En Banc decision?
- Did the CTA acquire jurisdiction over AICHI’s judicial claim (i.e., was the Petition for Review filed timely under Section 112(D) of the Tax Code)?
- If jurisdiction existed, did AICHI sufficiently prove entitlement to t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)