Case Digest (G.R. No. 199422)
Facts:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. KEPCO Ilijan Corporation, G.R. No. 199422, June 21, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.KEPCO Ilijan Corporation (respondent) filed its quarterly VAT returns for the first and second quarters of 2000 and an Application for Zero Rated Sales for that year, which the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) approved. Respondent then submitted a claim for refund of input VAT in the amount of P449,569,448.73, representing input tax on importation and domestic purchases of capital goods and services used to produce electricity sold to the National Power Corporation.
When the BIR did not act on the claim, respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division on March 21, 2002 (amended September 12, 2003). The CTA First Division, after trial and noting petitioner’s failure to file a memorandum, rendered a Decision on September 11, 2009 awarding respondent P443,447,184.50 as refundable input VAT (after deductions). No motion for reconsideration was filed; an Entry of Judgment issued October 10, 2009, and a Writ of Execution issued February 16, 2010 to effect the refund.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (petitioner) asserts she only became aware of the decision and writ on March 7, 2011 via an internal memorandum recommending issuance of a Tax Credit Certificate. On April 11, 2011 the Commissioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CTA En Banc, seeking to set aside the First Division’s Decision, the Entry of Judgment, and the Writ of Execution, and to reopen the CTA case to allow filing of petitioner’s memorandum. Respondent moved to deny due course.
The CTA En Banc dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated July 27, 2011; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 15, 2011. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court (petition filed December 9, 2011), asking the Court t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court attacking a final judgment of one of its own divisions?
- Can the alleged gross and palpable negligence or total abandonment by petitioner’s counsel amount to extrinsic fraud sufficient to justify annulment of judgment?
- Did the CTA First Division lack jurisdiction over respondent’s original petition for refund (i.e., was jurisdiction defeated by failure to comply with reglementary periods under the NIRC)?
- Is petitioner barred by laches or untim...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)