Case Digest (G.R. No. 203249)
Facts:
- San Roque Power Corporation (petitioner) is a VAT-registered taxpayer.
- The petitioner was granted a zero-rating on electricity sales to the National Power Corporation (NPC) for the period from January 14, 2004, to December 31, 2004.
- On December 22, 2005, and February 27, 2006, the petitioner filed two administrative claims for the refund of unutilized input VAT for the periods of January 1, 2004, to March 31, 2004, and April 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004, respectively.
- Due to the respondent's inaction, the petitioner filed petitions for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 30, 2006, and June 20, 2006, seeking refunds of P17,017,648.31 and P14,959,061.57.
- The CTA Second Division granted a partial refund of P29,931,505.18.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed a petition for review with the CTA En Banc, claiming the judicial claims were premature under Section 112 (D) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
- The CTA En Banc ruled in favor of the CIR, dismissing the petitions for review due to prematurity.
- The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CTA En Banc's decision.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that simultaneous filing of administrative and judicial claims for refund/credit of input VAT is not permissible under Section 112 of the NIRC.
- The Court held that the Aichi ruling should not be applied retroactively to the petitioner’s claims.
- The Supreme Court found that the CTA En Banc...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the 120-day and 30-day periods in Section 112 (D) of the NIRC are mandatory and jurisdictional.
- Prior to the Aichi ruling, there was no jurisprudence allowing premature filing of judicial claims before the 120-day period expired.
- The petitioner’s claims were filed prematurely, as they did not wait for the full expiration of ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 203249)
Facts:
The case involves San Roque Power Corporation (petitioner) and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent). The events leading to the case began when San Roque Power Corporation, a VAT-registered taxpayer, was granted a zero-rating on its sales of electricity to the National Power Corporation (NPC) effective from January 14, 2004, to December 31, 2004. On December 22, 2005, and February 27, 2006, the petitioner filed two separate administrative claims for the refund of unutilized input VAT for the periods of January 1, 2004, to March 31, 2004, and April 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004, respectively. Due to the inaction of the respondent, the petitioner filed petitions for review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 30, 2006, and June 20, 2006, for the respective periods, seeking refunds amounting to P17,017,648.31 and P14,959,061.57. The CTA Second Division initially granted a partial refund of P29,931,505.18. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a petition for review with the CTA En Banc, arguing that the judicial claims were premature as they violated the 120-day and 30-day periods prescribed in Section 112 (D) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The CTA En Banc ruled in favor of the CIR, dismissing the petitions for review on the grounds of prematurity. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the...