CIR vs PRIMETOWN PROPERTY

G.R. No. 184823 October 6, 2010

Respondent Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc., a Philippine corporation, is registered as
(VAT) entity. On eptem!er "#, $##%, respondent filed a claim for ref&nd'credit of inp&t VAT
for the period (&ly ), $##$ to eptem!er "#, $##$ in the total amo&nt of P",*+),)$".*$ ,ith
the petitioner (CIR), thro&gh (-OF). On e.en date, respondent filed a Petition for
Re.ie,
/
,ith the CTA for the ref&nd'credit of the same inp&t VAT.
The case ,as doc0eted as CTA Case 1o. /#23 and ,as raffled to the econd -i.ision of the
CTA. In the Petition for Re.ie,, respondent alleged that for the period (&ly ), $##$ to
eptem!er "#, $##$, it generated and recorded 4ero5rated sales in the amo&nt
of P)"),/+),"++.##,
*
,hich ,as paid6 that for the said period, it inc&rred and paid inp&t VAT
amo&nting to P",+)$,#**.)% from p&rchases and importation attri!&ta!le to its 4ero5rated
sales6
)#
and that in its application for ref&nd'credit filed ,ith the -OF it only claimed the
amo&nt of P",*+),)$".*$.
))
In response, petitioner filed his Ans,er, raising the follo,ing
special and affirmati.e defenses, among others, that Petitioner m&st pro.e that the claim
,as filed ,ithin the t,o ($) year period prescri!ed in ection $$+ of the Ta7 Code6
Trial ens&ed, after ,hich, on (an&ary %, $##*, the econd -i.ision of the CTA rendered a
-ecision partially granting respondent8s claim for ref&nd'credit. The CTA r&les that In
compliance ,ith the third re9&isite, petitioner filed its administrati.e claim for ref&nd on
eptem!er "#, $##% (:7hi!it ;1;) and the present Petition for Re.ie, on eptem!er "#,
$##%, !oth ,ithin the t,o ($) year prescripti.e period from the close of the ta7a!le 9&arter
,hen the sales ,ere made, ,hich is from eptem!er "#, $##$.
The econd -i.ision of the CTA, ho,e.er, denied petitioner8s <otion for Partial
Reconsideration for lac0 of merit. Petitioner th&s ele.ated .ia a Petition for Re.ie, to the
CTA En Banc ,hich affirmed the econd -i.ision8s -ecision allo,ing the partial ta7
ref&nd'credit in fa.or of respondent. =o,e.er, as to the rec0oning point for co&nting the t,o5
year period, the CTA :n >anc r&led?
Petitioner arg&es that the administrati.e and @&dicial claims ,ere filed !eyond the period
allo,ed !y la, and hence, the honora!le Co&rt has no @&risdiction o.er the same. In
addition, petitioner f&rther contends that respondentAs filing of the administrati.e and @&dicial
BclaimsC effecti.ely eliminates the a&thority of the honora!le Co&rt to e7ercise @&risdiction
o.er the @&dicial claim.
ISSES
1. For purposes of computing the 2 year prescriptive period, should Article 13 of the
Civil Code apply which provides that a year is euivalent to 3!" days or the
Administrative Code which provides that a year is 3!# days.
2. $hether the rec%oning of the 2 year prescriptive period commences from the close
of the ta&a'le uarter when the sales were made or from the time the input (A) was
paid.
3. $hether or not the filing of the *udicial claim which was simultaneous with the
administrative claim was premature.
R!ING
1. "2# days p&rs&ant to the Administrati.e Code. In Commissioner of Internal Re.en&e
.. Primeto,n Property Dro&p, Inc.,
%+
,e said that as !et,een the Ci.il Code, ,hich
pro.ides that a year is e9&i.alent to "23 days, and the Administrati.e Code of )+*/,
,hich states that a year is composed of )$ calendar months, it is the latter that m&st
pre.ail follo,ing the legal ma7im, Ee7 posteriori derogat priori.
$. The $ year prescripti.e period shall rec0on from close of the ta7a!le 9&arter ,hen
the sales ,ere made and not from the date of payment. The former applies to
ref&nds or ta7 credits of the inp&t ta7 ,hile the latter refers to the reco.ery of ta7
erroneo&sly or illegally collected. In the case at !ar, ,hat is in.ol.es a ta7 ref&nd or a
ta7 credit. =ence, the former shall pre.ail.
". &!section (A) of the said pro.ision states that ;any VAT5registered person, ,hose
sales are 4ero5rated or effecti.ely 4ero5rated may, ,ithin t,o years after the close of
the ta7a!le 9&arter ,hen the sales ,ere made, apply for the iss&ance of a ta7 credit
certificate or ref&nd of credita!le inp&t ta7 d&e or paid attri!&ta!le to s&ch sales.; The
phrase ;,ithin t,o ($) years 7 7 7 apply for the iss&ance of a ta7 credit certificate or
ref&nd; refers to applications for ref&nd'credit filed ,ith the CIR and not to appeals
made to the CTA. This is apparent in the first paragraph of s&!section (-) of the
same pro.ision, ,hich states that the CIR has ;)$# days from the s&!mission of
complete doc&ments in s&pport of the application filed in accordance ,ith
&!sections (A) and (>); ,ithin ,hich to decide on the claim.