Case Summary (G.R. No. 205652)
Facts of the Case
P&G is a VAT-registered foreign corporation operating a Regional Operating Headquarters in the Philippines. Following their operational activities, P&G filed mandatory Monthly VAT Declarations and Quarterly VAT Returns in 2005, detailing amounts attributable to their zero-rated sales. P&G applied for a tax credit certificate (TCC) for unutilized input VAT in March and May 2007. The CTA later denied these claims, asserting they were prematurely filed, contrary to procedural requirements.
Procedural History
The original claims were consolidated under CTA Case No. 7581 and 7639 and were presented before the CTA Division. Evidence was furnished by P&G to support its claim, whereas the CIR opted to rest on pleadings since the claims were pending at the BIR level. The CTA division subsequently ruled against P&G, saying its claims were indeed filed prematurely within the context of the 120-day deadline for the CIR to act on administrative claims.
Reference to Judicial Precedents
The landmark case in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. established the principles governing the 120-day administrative claim period, after which taxpayers may appeal to the CTA should the CIR fail to respond or deny the claim. In this case, the CTA Division determined that P&G had filed its claims a mere six and thirty-seven days respectively after applying at the administrative level, which was insufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement.
Application of Aichi Doctrine
The invocation of the Aichi doctrine necessitated strict adherence to the established timeliness of claims. However, there was contention over the possible retroactive application of this rule, as P&G argued it would violate its due process rights. This claim was countered by the CIR who maintained that adherence to the timeline was non-negotiable as per the existing provisions of the NIRC.
Arguments Presented by P&G
P&G advanced several arguments, including that its claims were filed in good faith based on administrative guidance from BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, which permitted filings prior to the end of the 120-day period. P&G contended the En Banc's application of the Aichi doctrine retroactively was erroneous and constituted a violation of due process, further asserting that their claims should not have been dismissed and were timely filed in the context of BIR's own rulings.
Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the CTA's decision, establishing that P&G’s claims were indeed t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 205652)
Case Overview
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Procter & Gamble Asia Pte Ltd. (P&G) against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR).
- The petition seeks the reversal of the Decision dated September 21, 2012, and Resolution dated January 30, 2013, from the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc concerning P&G's claim for refund of unutilized input value-added tax (VAT).
- The CTA En Banc upheld the dismissal of P&G's claims for being prematurely filed.
Background Facts
- P&G is a foreign corporation registered in Singapore with a Regional Operating Headquarters in the Philippines, providing various advisory services to related companies.
- It is a VAT-registered taxpayer under Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Certificate of Registration No. 9RC0000071787.
- P&G filed its Monthly VAT Declarations and Quarterly VAT Returns from January to June 2005, with dates of filing recorded.
- On March 22, 2007, and May 2, 2007, P&G submitted applications to the BIR for a refund or issuance of tax credit certificates for unutilized input VAT for specified periods in 2005.
Procedural History
- P&G filed a petition for review with the CTA on March 28, 2007, seeking a refund in the amount of P23,090,729.17 for the first quarter of