By: Zennia Marie V. Deleonio on 03 August 2018
FACTS:
Petitioner Corporation filed an administrative claim for a tax credit/refund based on section 112 of the Tax Code in the amount of P24,826, 667.61, representing excess input tax attributable to its effectively zero-rated sales in 2001, with the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance (OSSAC-DOF). Petitioner corporation filed a petition for review with the CTA. The CTA denied the claim for tax credit/refund for petitioner's failure to comply with the receipt and invoicing requirements provided by the Tax Code for refund based on zero-rated transactions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA has jurisdiction to entertain the instant case.
RULING:
No. The CTA did not acquire jurisdiction over the controversy. The Supreme Court stated that strict compliance with the prescriptive periods in claiming for refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to ay zero-rated or effectively zero-rates sales (CIR v. San Roque Power Corporatio, Taganito Mining Corporation v. CIR, and Philex Mining Corporation v. CIR). Petitioner Corporation has failed to comply with the 120+30 day period, which is mandatory and jurisdictional, in filing its petition for review. The 120 day period for the administrative office to act ended on September 22, 2001, thus petitioner should have filed its petition for review thirty days thereafter or on before April 24, 2002.
The provision in question is Section 112(D) (now subparagraph C) of the NIRC:
Sec. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax
(D) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be made. In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof.
In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis Supplied)
A simple reading of the abovequoted provision reveals that the taxpayer may appeal the denial or the inaction of the CIR only within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision denying the claim or the expiration of the 120-day period given to the CIR to decide the claim. Because the law is categorical in its language, there is no need for further interpretation by the courts and non-compliance with the provision cannot be justified.
FACTS:
Petitioner Corporation filed an administrative claim for a tax credit/refund based on section 112 of the Tax Code in the amount of P24,826, 667.61, representing excess input tax attributable to its effectively zero-rated sales in 2001, with the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance (OSSAC-DOF). Petitioner corporation filed a petition for review with the CTA. The CTA denied the claim for tax credit/refund for petitioner's failure to comply with the receipt and invoicing requirements provided by the Tax Code for refund based on zero-rated transactions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA has jurisdiction to entertain the instant case.
RULING:
No. The CTA did not acquire jurisdiction over the controversy. The Supreme Court stated that strict compliance with the prescriptive periods in claiming for refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to ay zero-rated or effectively zero-rates sales (CIR v. San Roque Power Corporatio, Taganito Mining Corporation v. CIR, and Philex Mining Corporation v. CIR). Petitioner Corporation has failed to comply with the 120+30 day period, which is mandatory and jurisdictional, in filing its petition for review. The 120 day period for the administrative office to act ended on September 22, 2001, thus petitioner should have filed its petition for review thirty days thereafter or on before April 24, 2002.
The provision in question is Section 112(D) (now subparagraph C) of the NIRC:
Sec. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax
(D) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be made. In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof.
In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis Supplied)
A simple reading of the abovequoted provision reveals that the taxpayer may appeal the denial or the inaction of the CIR only within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision denying the claim or the expiration of the 120-day period given to the CIR to decide the claim. Because the law is categorical in its language, there is no need for further interpretation by the courts and non-compliance with the provision cannot be justified.
