RSS

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Visayas Geothermal Power Co. Inc., G.R. No. 181276, 11 November 2013

24 Nov

[MENDOZA, J.]

 

FACTS

Respondent VGPCI incurred input value added tax of P20,213,044.50 on its domestic purchase of goods and services and importation of goods used in its business for the third and fourth quarter of 2001 and for the entire year of 2002. Due to the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9136, which became effective on June 26, 2001, VGPCI’s sales of generated power became zero-rated and were no longer subject to VAT at 10%.

On June 26, 2003, VGPCI filed before the BIR a claim for refund of unutilized input VAT payment in the third quarter of 2001. On December 18, 2003, another claim was filed for the last quarter of 2001 and the four quarters of 2002. For failure of the BIR to act upon said claims, VGPCI filed separate petitions for review before the CTA on September 30, 2003 and December 19, 2003, praying for a refund on the issuance of a tax credit certificate covering the period from July to September 2001 andfor the period from October 2001 to December 2002, CTA Case Nos. 6790 and 6838, respectively.

 

ISSUE

Whether VGPCI failed to observe the proper prescriptive period required by law for the filing of an appeal before the CTA because it filed its petition before the end of the 120-day period granted to the CIR to decide its claim for refund under Section 112(D) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

 

HELD

YES, to CTA Case No. 6790.

NO, to CTA Case No. 6838.

The judicial claim filed on September 30, 2003 (CTA Case No. 6790) was prematurely filed and cannot be taken cognizance of because respondent failed to wait for the requisite 120 days after the filing of its claim for refund with the BIR before elevating the case to the CTA. However, the judicial claim filed on December 19, 2003 (CTA Case No. 6838), which was made after the issuance of BIR Ruling DA-480-03, can be considered by the CTA despite its hasty filing only one day after the application for refund was first lodged with the BIR.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 24, 2015 in Case Digests, Taxation Law

 

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: