Case Digest (G.R. No. 168950)
Facts:
Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines, Inc. (Rohm Apollo) is a domestic corporation, registered with the SEC and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority as an Ecozone Export Enterprise, engaged in manufacturing semiconductors at the Peoples Technology Complex Special Economic Zone in Cavite, and registered with the BIR as a VAT taxpayer. Prior to commencing operations on 1 September 2001, Rohm Apollo contracted Shimizu Philippine Contractors, Inc. for factory construction and made payments treated as capital-goods purchases: P198,551,884.28 on 7 July 2000 and P132,367,923.58 on 3 August 2000.
Rohm Apollo filed an administrative claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for unutilized input VAT in the amount of P30,359,615.40 on 11 December 2000. Under Section 112(A)/(B) and Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code, the CIR had 120 days from submission (until 10 April 2001) to act; failing that, the taxpayer has 30 days thereafter to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CIR did not act within 120 days.
Instead of filing a judicial claim within 30 days after the 120‑day lapse (i.e., by 10 May 2001), Rohm Apollo filed a Petition for Review with the CTA (CTA Case No. 6534) on 11 September 2002, believing the judicial claim need only be within the two‑year prescriptive period under Sections 112(A)/(B). On 27 May 2004 the CTA First Division denied the petition, finding among other things that Rohm Apollo should have submitted VAT returns for the third quarter of 2001 to verify non‑utilization of the input VAT. The CTA First Division denied the taxpayer’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Rohm Apollo elevated the case to the CTA En Banc via a Petition for Review on 18 January 2005. On 22 June 2005 the CTA En Banc affirmed the First Division, holding that the failure to present subsequent VAT returns precluded determination whether the input VAT remained unutilized; the En Banc denied reconsideration by Resolution dated 28 July 2005. Petitioner then ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Tax Appeals acquire jurisdiction over Rohm Apollo’s judicial claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT given the 120‑day waiting period and the 30‑day appeal period under Section 112(D) of the 1...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)