Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 208 views

    Ce Casecnan Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Julio
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals did not err in denying CE Casecnan's claim for refund due to prescription. Section 112(c) of the Tax Code explicitly states that the Commissioner has 120 days to decide an administrative claim for refund, and the taxpayer must file a judicial appeal within 30 days of the Commissioner's decision or the expiration of the 120-day period. CE Casecnan filed its judicial appeal 19 days late, beyond the 30-day deadline, so its claim was correctly denied as prescribed. The periods stated in Section 112(c) are mandatory and jurisdictional, and non-compliance bars the Court of Tax Appeals from considering an appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ce Casecnan Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Julio
    208 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals did not err in denying CE Casecnan's claim for refund due to prescription. Section 112(c) of the Tax Code explicitly states that the Commissioner has 120 days to decide an administrative claim for refund, and the taxpayer must file a judicial appeal within 30 days of the Commissioner's decision or the expiration of the 120-day period. CE Casecnan filed its judicial appeal 19 days late, beyond the 30-day deadline, so its claim was correctly denied as prescribed. The periods stated in Section 112(c) are mandatory and jurisdictional, and non-compliance bars the Court of Tax Appeals from considering an appeal.

    Original Description:

    Ce Casecnan vs CIR Case Digest

    Original Title

    Ce Casecnan vs Cir

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals did not err in denying CE Casecnan's claim for refund due to prescription. Section 112(c) of the Tax Code explicitly states that the Commissioner has 120 days to decide an administrative claim for refund, and the taxpayer must file a judicial appeal within 30 days of the Commissioner's decision or the expiration of the 120-day period. CE Casecnan filed its judicial appeal 19 days late, beyond the 30-day deadline, so its claim was correctly denied as prescribed. The periods stated in Section 112(c) are mandatory and jurisdictional, and non-compliance bars the Court of Tax Appeals from considering an appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    208 views3 pages

    Ce Casecnan Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Julio
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals did not err in denying CE Casecnan's claim for refund due to prescription. Section 112(c) of the Tax Code explicitly states that the Commissioner has 120 days to decide an administrative claim for refund, and the taxpayer must file a judicial appeal within 30 days of the Commissioner's decision or the expiration of the 120-day period. CE Casecnan filed its judicial appeal 19 days late, beyond the 30-day deadline, so its claim was correctly denied as prescribed. The periods stated in Section 112(c) are mandatory and jurisdictional, and non-compliance bars the Court of Tax Appeals from considering an appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    SECOND DIVISION

    G.R. No. 203928, July 22, 2015 (763 scra 553)


    CE CASECNAN WATER AND ENERGY COMPANY,
    INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Facts:
    CE Casecnan was incorporated on September 21, 1994. Its primary purpose was "to
    design, develop, construct, assemble, commission and operate hydro-electric power
    plants and related facilities" for government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities,
    or agencies, as well as for any government-owned and controlled corporation engaged
    in energy development, supply, or distribution. It is registered with the Bureau of Internal
    Revenue as a VAT taxpayer.
    For the first to fourth quarters of 2006, CE Casecnan had unutilized input VAT credits
    from its domestic purchases of goods, services rendered by non-residents, and
    importation of non-capital goods in the total amount of P45,445,453.76.
    Of the total accumulated input VAT of P45,445,453.76, the amount of P26,066,286.96
    was attributable to CE Casecnan's zero-rated sales of power generation services to the
    National Irrigation Administration for the first to fourth quarters of 2006.
    On September 26, 2007, CE Casecnan filed before the Bureau of Internal Revenue an
    administrative claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate for the excess or
    unutilized input VAT in the total amount of P26,066,286.96.
    On March 14, 2008, CE Casecnan filed its Petition for Review, with the Court of Tax
    Appeals, due to the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on its
    administrative claim.
    On December 2, 2010, the Court of Tax Appeals Former Second Division denied CE
    Casecnan's judicial claim for having been filed beyond the thirty (30)-day period
    prescribed in Section 112 (c) of the Tax Code. Likewise, its Motion for Reconsideration
    was denied.
    CE Casecnan appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc. Through the Decision
    dated June 26, 2012, the appeal was denied. Relying upon Commissioner of Internal
    Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company Asia, Inc., the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc ruled
    that the one hundred twenty (120)- and thirty (30)-day periods under Section 112 (c) of
    the Tax Code are mandatory, and non-compliance is fatal to a judicial claim for refund.
    CE Casecnan's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was further denied in the Court
    of Tax Appeals' October 4, 2012 Resolution.
    Issue: whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc erred in denying petitioner CE
    Caseenan claim for refund due to prescription. NO
    Ruling:

    Petitioner's judicial claim was filed beyond the thirty (30)-day period required in Section
    112 (c) of the Tax Code. The administrative claim for refund was filed on September 26,
    2007. Thus, the one hundred twenty (120)-day period for the Bureau of Internal
    Revenue to act on the claim lapsed on January 24, 2008. Petitioner had until February
    23, 2008 to file a petition before the Court of Tax Appeals, but it filed its appeal only on
    March 14, 2008. Petitioner was late by 19 days.
    The prescriptive periods regarding claims for refunds or tax credits of input VAT are
    explicitly set forth in Section 112 of the Tax Code:
    Section112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax.
    C. 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 Subsection (A) 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.
    There is no room for any other interpretation of the text. Resort to an appeal before the
    Court of Tax Appeals should be made only within thirty (30) days either from receipt of
    the decision denying the claim or the expiration of the one hundred twenty (120)-day
    period given to the Commissioner to decide the claim.
    Reliance on administrative interpretation of an otherwise clear and plain provision of our
    tax statutes has a tendency to encourage regulatory capture. In this case, there is even
    no rule, regulation, or doctrine to support petitioner's stance. Clearly, the thirty (30)-day
    statutory period within which to file a petition for review is jurisdictional. Non-compliance
    bars the Court of Tax Appeals from taking cognizance of the appeal and determining the
    veracity of the tax refund or credit claim.

    JAMEL M. AGANTAL

    You might also like