0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
209 vizualizări3 pagini
Rohm Apollo filed an administrative claim for a refund of input VAT with the BIR on December 11, 2000. The CIR had 120 days, until April 10, 2001, to act on the claim but did not. Rohm Apollo then had 30 days, until May 10, 2001, to file a judicial claim with the CTA, but filed on September 11, 2002 instead. The Supreme Court ruled that the CTA did not have jurisdiction over the claim because the judicial claim was filed beyond the mandatory 30-day period, making the petitioner's claim invalid.
Rohm Apollo filed an administrative claim for a refund of input VAT with the BIR on December 11, 2000. The CIR had 120 days, until April 10, 2001, to act on the claim but did not. Rohm Apollo then had 30 days, until May 10, 2001, to file a judicial claim with the CTA, but filed on September 11, 2002 instead. The Supreme Court ruled that the CTA did not have jurisdiction over the claim because the judicial claim was filed beyond the mandatory 30-day period, making the petitioner's claim invalid.
Rohm Apollo filed an administrative claim for a refund of input VAT with the BIR on December 11, 2000. The CIR had 120 days, until April 10, 2001, to act on the claim but did not. Rohm Apollo then had 30 days, until May 10, 2001, to file a judicial claim with the CTA, but filed on September 11, 2002 instead. The Supreme Court ruled that the CTA did not have jurisdiction over the claim because the judicial claim was filed beyond the mandatory 30-day period, making the petitioner's claim invalid.
ROHM APOLLO SEMICONDUCTOR of Internal Revenue (CIR) had a
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner VS. period of 120 days from the filing of
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent (G.R. No. the application for a refund or credit 168950, January 14, 2015) on 11 December 2000, or until 10 April 2001, to act on the claim. The FACTS: waiting period, however, lapsed without any action by the CIR on the Petitioner (Rohm Apollo) is a claim. domestic corporation registered with Instead of filing a judicial claim the Securities and Exchange within 30 days from the lapse of the Commission. It is also registered 120-day period on 10 April, or until with the Philippine Economic Zone 10 May 2001, Rohm Apollo filed a Authority as an Ecozone Export Petition for Review with the CTA Enterprise. Petitioner is in the docketed as CTA Case No. 6534 on business of manufacturing 11 September 2002. It was under the semiconductor products, particularly belief that a judicial claim had to be microchip transistors and tantalium filed within the two-year prescriptive capacitors. Further, it is registered period ending on 30 September with the Bureau of Internal Revenue 2002. (BIR) as a value-added taxpayer. On 27 May 2004, the CTA First Sometime in June 2000, prior to the Division rendered a Decision commencement of its operations on denying the judicial claim for a 1 September 2001, Rohm Apollo refund or tax credit. The CTA First engaged the services of Shimizu Division held, among others, that Philippine Contractors, Inc. petitioner must have at least (Shimizu) for the construction of a submitted its VAT return for the factory. For services rendered by third quarter of 2001, since it was in Shimizu, petitioner made initial that period that it began its business payments of P198,551,884.28 on 7 operations. The purpose was to July 2000 and P132,367,923.58 on 3 verify if indeed petitioner did not August 2000. carry over the claimed input VAT to the third quarter or the succeeding Petitioner treated the payments as quarters. capital goods purchases and thus On 14 July 2004, petitioner filed a filed with the BIR an administrative Motion for Reconsideration, but the claim for the refund or credit of tax court stood by its Decision. On accumulated unutilized creditable 18 January 2005, the taxpayer input taxes on 11 December 2000. As elevated the case to the CTA En the close of the taxable quarter when Banc via a Petition for Review. On the purchases were made was 30 22 June 2005, the CTA En Banc September 2000, the administrative rendered its Decision denying Rohm claim was filed well within the two- Apollo’s Petition for Review. year prescriptive period. Petitioner filed this Rule 45 Petition, Pursuant to Section 112(D) of the arguing that it has satisfied all the 1997 Tax Code, the Commissioner legal requirements for a valid claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized failed to do so, however. Rohm Apollo input VAT. should then have treated the CIR’s inaction as a denial of its claim. Petitioner would ISSUE: then have had 30 days, or until 10 May 2001, to file a judicial claim with the CTA. Whether or not the CTA acquired But Rohm Apollo filed a Petition for jurisdiction over the claim for the refund or Review with the CTA only on 11 September tax credit of unutilized input VAT? 2002. The judicial claim was thus filed late. RULING: Justice Carpio stated: “The old rule that the taxpayer may file the judicial claim, The court denied the Petition on the without waiting for the Commissioner's ground that the petitioner’s judicial claim for decision if the two-year prescriptive period a refund/tax credit was filed beyond the is about to expire, cannot apply because that prescriptive period. rule was adopted before the enactment of the 30-day period. The 30-day period was Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax adopted precisely to do away with the old Code states the time requirements for filing rule, so that under the VAT System the a judicial claim for the refund or tax credit taxpayer will always have 30 days to file the of input VAT. The legal provision speaks of judicial claim even if the Commissioner acts two periods: the period of 120 days, which only on the 120th day, or does not act at all serves as a waiting period to give time for during the 120-day period. With the 30-day the CIR to act on the administrative claim period always available to the taxpayer, the for a refund or credit; and the period of 30 taxpayer can no longer file a judicial claim days, which refers to the period for filing a for refund or credit of input VAT without judicial claim with the CTA. It is the 30-day waiting for the Commissioner to decide until period that is at issue in this case. the expiration of the 120-day period. The 30-day period to appeal is mandatory and The landmark case of Commissioner jurisdictional.” of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation has interpreted Section 112 (D). As a general rule, the 30-day period The Court held that the taxpayer can file an to appeal is both mandatory and appeal in one of two ways: (1) file the jurisdictional. The only exception to the judicial claim within 30 days after the general rule is when BIR Ruling No. DA- Commissioner denies the claim within the 489-03 was still in force, that is, between 10 120-day waiting period, or (2) file the December 2003 and 5 October 2010, The judicial claim within 30 days from the BIR Ruling excused premature filing, expiration of the 120-day period if the declaring that the taxpayer-claimant need Commissioner does not act within that not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period period. before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review. On 11 December 2000, petitioner filed with the BIR an application for the Premature filing is allowed for cases refund or credit of accumulated unutilized falling during the time when BIR Ruling No. creditable input taxes. Thus, the CIR had a DA-489-03 was in force; nevertheless, late period of 120 days from 11 December 2000, filing is absolutely prohibited even for cases or until 10 April 2001, to act on the claim. It falling within that period. The petitioner filed its judicial claim with the CTA on 11 September 2002. This was before the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003. Thus, Rohm Apollo could not have benefited from the BIR Ruling. Besides, its situation was not a case of premature filing of its judicial claim but one of late filing. To repeat, its judicial claim was filed on 11 September 2002 – long after 10 May 2001, the last day of the 30-day period for appeal. The case thus falls under the general rule – the 30-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional.