GOLEA, Ma. Consorcia A.

2013 – 0060

Procter and Gamble vs. CIR

G.R. No. 202071 February 19, 2014

FACTS:
On 26 September and 13 December 2006 Procter and Gamble (P&G) filed
administrative claim with BIR for the refund or credit of the input VAT attributable to the former’s
zero-rated sales covering the periods 1 July – 30 September 2004 and 01 October – 31
December 2004, respectively.

On 2 October and 29 December 2016, petitioner filed judicial claims.

CTA First Division rendered a Decision dismissing the judicial claims for having been
prematurely filed. CTA En Banc affirmed the dismissal of CTA Division.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the judicial claim suffers the vice of premature filing when the same is
filed before CTA before the lapse of the 120-day period when CIR may resolve on the
administrative claim before it.

RULING:
No. In this case, there is no vice of premature filing even if judicial claim was filed before
lapse of 120-day period for the CIR to resolve on the administrative claim before it.

BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 expressly states that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for
the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of
Petition for Review. This was valid from its issuance on 10 December 2003 up to its reversal on
06 October 2010 when the case of Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc was promulgated. Such
reversal was necessitated when taxpayers continue to get misled to file prematurely their
judicial claims with CTA. The judicial claims in the instant petition were filed on 2 October and
29 December 2006, well within the ruling's period of validity.