Case Digest (G.R. No. 209306)
Facts:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hedcor Sibulan, Inc., G.R. No. 209306, September 27, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.
Hedcor Sibulan, Inc. (HSI) is a domestic corporation engaged in hydropower generation and sale of power. HSI filed its Original Quarterly VAT Return for the first quarter of 2008 on April 21, 2008, and an Amended Quarterly VAT Return on May 20, 2008, showing alleged unutilized input VAT of P9,379,866.27 attributable to zero-rated sales and no output VAT against which to credit those inputs.
HSI filed an administrative claim for refund of that unutilized input VAT on March 29, 2010, and the next day, March 30, 2010, it filed a judicial claim for refund with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), docketed as CTA Case No. 8051. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) answered, asserting prematurity and noncompliance with administrative requirements under Revenue Memorandum Order No. 53-98.
While HSI’s judicial claim was pending, this Court decided Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. (promulgated October 6, 2010), which held that the 120-day period granted the CIR to act on an administrative refund claim under Section 112(C) of the NIRC, and the subsequent 30-day period to file with the CTA, were mandatory and jurisdictional. Relying on Aichi, the CTA Third Division dismissed HSI’s petition as prematurely filed in a Decision dated January 5, 2012; a motion for reconsideration was denied March 28, 2012.
The CTA En Banc affirmed that dismissal on December 6, 2012. HSI filed a motion for reconsideration with the CTA En Banc on January 2, 2013. During pendency of that motion, this Court promulgated its decision in the consolidated cases commonly referred to as San Roque (decided February 12, 2013), which recognized BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 as a general interpretative rule that, for the period it was in effect, estopped the CIR from invoking prematurity where taxpayers relied on that ruling and filed before the 120-day lapse. In light of San Roque and subsequent reconciliatory pronouncements (notably Taganito Mining Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue), the CTA En Banc on May 30, 2013 issued an Amended Decision reversing its December 6, 2012 ruling and remanding the case to the CTA Division to determine HSI’s entitlement to the claime...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was HSI’s judicial claim for refund, filed on March 30, 2010, prematurely filed (i.e., did it fail to observe the 120-day waiting period under Section 112(C) of the NIRC)?
- Is HSI entitled to the claimed refund/credit of P9,379,866.27 for unutilized input VAT for the fi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)