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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Mangwang - Deutsche Knowledge Services Vs Cir - GR No 197980

    Uploaded by

    トレンティーノ アップル
    1) Deutsche Knowledge Services filed an application for a tax refund which was dismissed by the CTA as premature since it was filed before the 120 day period for the CIR to act. 2) The Supreme Court later ruled that as long as the claim was filed after a 2003 BIR ruling and before a 2010 doctrine, it would be considered timely even if filed before the 120 days. 3) Here, Deutsche filed its claim in 2009 which was after the 2003 BIR ruling, so its claim was considered timely even though filed before the 120 day period lapsed.

    Copyright:

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

    Mangwang - Deutsche Knowledge Services Vs Cir - GR No 197980

    Uploaded by

    トレンティーノ アップル
    73 views1 page
    1) Deutsche Knowledge Services filed an application for a tax refund which was dismissed by the CTA as premature since it was filed before the 120 day period for the CIR to act. 2) The Supreme Court later ruled that as long as the claim was filed after a 2003 BIR ruling and before a 2010 doctrine, it would be considered timely even if filed before the 120 days. 3) Here, Deutsche filed its claim in 2009 which was after the 2003 BIR ruling, so its claim was considered timely even though filed before the 120 day period lapsed.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Original Title

    Mangwang - Deutsche Knowledge Services vs Cir - Gr No 197980

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Deutsche Knowledge Services filed an application for a tax refund which was dismissed by the CTA as premature since it was filed before the 120 day period for the CIR to act. 2) The Supreme Court later ruled that as long as the claim was filed after a 2003 BIR ruling and before a 2010 doctrine, it would be considered timely even if filed before the 120 days. 3) Here, Deutsche filed its claim in 2009 which was after the 2003 BIR ruling, so its claim was considered timely even though filed before the 120 day period lapsed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    73 views1 page

    Mangwang - Deutsche Knowledge Services Vs Cir - GR No 197980

    Uploaded by

    トレンティーノ アップル
    1) Deutsche Knowledge Services filed an application for a tax refund which was dismissed by the CTA as premature since it was filed before the 120 day period for the CIR to act. 2) The Supreme Court later ruled that as long as the claim was filed after a 2003 BIR ruling and before a 2010 doctrine, it would be considered timely even if filed before the 120 days. 3) Here, Deutsche filed its claim in 2009 which was after the 2003 BIR ruling, so its claim was considered timely even though filed before the 120 day period lapsed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE LTD.

    VS CIR
    GR No. 197980, December 01, 2016

    FACTS:

    Petitioner filed an application for Tax credit/refund of its allegedly excess and unutilized input
    VAT for the first quarter of 2007 on March 31, 2009. Seventeen days later, on April 17, 2009, it
    filed a Petition for Review before the CTA Second Division citing the alleged inaction of the
    CIR. The CTA Second Division dismissed the petition.

    The petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA en banc. However, the CTA en banc
    merely affirmed the assailed resolution and dismissed petitioner's suit for having been
    prematurely filed prior to the expiration of the 120-day period granted to the CIR to act on the
    tax claim.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Petition for Review filed by Deutsche Knowledge Services was premature.

    RULING:

    Petitioner's judicial claim had been timely filed and should have been given due course and
    consideration by the CTA.

    During the pendency of the case, the Supreme Court en banc ruled in the case of CIR vs San
    Roque Power Corporation that a judicial claim for refund of input VAT which was filed with the
    CTA before the lapse of the 120-day period under Section 112 of the NIRC is considered to
    have been timely made, if such filing occurred after the issuance of the BIR Ruling No. DA-
    489-03 dated December 10, 2003 but before the adoption of the Aichi doctrine which was
    promulgated on October 6, 2010.

    In this case, Deutsche Petition for Review with the CTA was filed on April 17, 2009. Clearly, it
    was filed before the Aichi doctrine was laid down and after the issuance of BIR Ruling NO.
    DA-489-03.

    Hence, it's judicial claim was timely filed.

    Note:

    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.

    You might also like