Case Digest (G.R. No. 205652)
Facts:
Procter & Gamble Asia Pte Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205652, September 06, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. The petition is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc Decision dated September 21, 2012 and Resolution dated January 30, 2013 in C.T.A. EB Case No. 742.Procter & Gamble Asia Pte Ltd. (P&G) is a Singaporean corporation operating a Regional Operating Headquarter in the Philippines and a VAT-registered taxpayer. P&G filed Monthly VAT Declarations and Quarterly VAT Returns for the first and second quarters of 2005, and subsequently, on March 22, 2007 and May 2, 2007, filed administrative applications with the BIR Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 49 requesting refund or issuance of tax credit certificates (TCCs) for unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for January–March 2005 and April–June 2005.
On March 28, 2007 and June 8, 2007, P&G filed judicial claims with the CTA for refund/TCC in CTA Case Nos. 7581 (P23,090,729.17) and 7639 (P19,006,753.58), respectively. The CTA consolidated the two cases on July 30, 2007. P&G presented testimonial and documentary evidence; the CIR opted to submit the case for decision on the pleadings, noting the administrative claim remained pending before the BIR.
While the CTA proceedings were pending, this Court decided Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. (promulgated October 6, 2010), holding that compliance with the 120-day period under Section 112(C) of the NIRC, as amended (and the subsequent 30-day appeal period) is mandatory and jurisdictional. Citing Aichi, the CTA Special Division dismissed P&G’s petitions as prematurely filed in a Decision dated November 17, 2010; its motion for reconsideration was denied March 9, 2011. The CTA En Banc affirmed the Division on September 21, 2012 and denied reconsideration January 30, 2013.
Subsequently, this Court in San Roque (promulgated February 12, 2013) recognized an exception to the Aichi rule: taxpayers could rely on ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the CTA En Banc err in dismissing P&G’s judicial claims for refund as prematurely filed? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)