Case Digest (G.R. No. 244154)
Facts:
Zuellig-Pharma Asia Pacific Ltd. Phils. ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), G.R. No. 244154, July 15, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Zuellig‑PH is the Regional Operating Headquarters of a Hong Kong foreign corporation. For calendar year 2010 it filed quarterly VAT returns and, on February 17, 2011, submitted an administrative claim for refund (BIR Form No. 1914) for excess and unutilized input VAT totaling PHP 39,931,971.21 with BIR RDO No. 49. The BIR issued a Letter of Authority on March 3, 2011 authorizing examination of Zuellig‑PH’s VAT records. On June 29, 2011 the BIR sent a written request for supporting documents; Zuellig‑PH responded by submitting documents on July 5, 2011.
After July 2011 the record shows additional, largely verbal, requests by BIR officials for further documents from 2012 to 2014, to which Zuellig‑PH repeatedly complied (submissions dated May 8, 2012; July 25, 2012; December 6, 2012; September 11, 2013). The claim was later assigned to the Assessment Service; after further document requests Zuellig‑PH sent a letter dated April 29, 2014, stamped received the same date, stating it had “already submitted the complete documents” supporting its claim. Deputy Commissioner Aspe had earlier assured Zuellig‑PH (March 12, 2014) that the BIR would exert efforts to process the claim within the 120‑day period under the Tax Code.
When the BIR did not act within 120 days counted from April 29, 2014 (i.e., by August 27, 2014), Zuellig‑PH filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)‑Second Division on September 25, 2014 (CTA Case No. 8899). The BIR contended the judicial claim was belated because, relying on the written request dated June 29, 2011 and Zuellig‑PH’s July 5, 2011 submission, the 120‑day period should have been reckoned from July 2011, thus requiring judicial action much earlier than September 2014.
The CTA‑Second Division, in a Decision dated March 9, 2017, dismissed the petition as filed out of time, applying Pilipinas Total Gas and reasoning that the 120‑day period began from the taxpayer’s July 5, 2011 submission in response to the BIR’s written request; it discounted the subsequent verbal requests. Zuellig‑PH’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 9, 2017. The CTA En Banc affirmed the Division in a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Zuellig‑PH’s judicial claim for refund filed within the period prescribed by Section 112(C) of the Tax Code (i.e., was the petition timely fi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)