CIR v San Roque 690 SCRA 336

This involves three cases with similar issues: 1) CIR v San Roque Power
Corp (SRPC), 2) Taganito ining Corp (TC) vs CIR, an! ") Phile# ining Corp
(PC) vs CIR
SRPC, TC, an! PC are all registere! with the $IR an! the $%I& all are also
'(T registere!) (ll three cases concern with the application *or re*un! *or
unutili+e! input '(T)
San Roque Case
In the case o* SRPC, SRPC allege!l, incurre! e#cess input '(T in the
amount o* P-./ *or ta#a0le ,ear 2//1 which it !eclare! in its 1uarterl,
'(T Returns 2le! *or the same ,ear) San Roque !ul, 2le! with the $IR claims
*or re*un! in the total amount o* P-./ representing unitili+e! input ta#es as
!eclare! in its '(T returns *or ta#a0le ,ear 2//1)
$ut, on arch 23, 2//", San Roque 2le! an amen!e! 1uarterl, 'at returns
*or ,ear 2//1 since it increase! its unutili+e! input '(T to the amount o*
P-./)2 )
$ecause o* CIR4s inaction, San Roque 2le! a Petition *or Review with the
CT( on (pril 1/, 2//") %n arch 3 2//., the CT( 2n! 5ivision !enie! San
Roque4s claim 0ecause a) it lac6e! o* recor!e! +ero7rate! or e8ectivel, +ero7
rate! sales, 0) it *aile! to su0mit !ocuments i!enti*,ing the purchase!
goo!s9services relate! to the claime! input '(T, an! c) it *aile! to prove that
the relate! construction costs were capitali+e! in its 0oo6s o* account an!
su0:ecte! to !epreciation) (lso, it was raise! that SRPC 2le! the claim
prematurel,) The CT( en 0anc rule! otherwise citing Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Toledo Power, Inc. an! Rev emo Cir) ;o) <=7/" as its
0ases *or ruling that San Roque4s :u!icial claim was not prematurel, 2le!)
TMC Case
TC 2le! all its onthl, '(T !eclarations an! 1uarterl, '(T Returns *or the
perio! >an 1, 2//- to 5ec "1, 2//-)
%n ;ovem0er 1<, 2//., TC 2le! with the CIR through $IR4s ?arge
Ta#pa,ers (u!it an! Investigation 5ivision II (?T(I5 II), a letter !ate!
;ovem0er 1", 2//. claiming a ta# cre!it9re*un! o* its suppose! input '(T
amounting to 3)< *or the perio! covering >an 1 2//< 7 5ec "1 2//<) %n the
same !ate, TC also 2le! an application *or ta# cre!it9re*un! *or the perio!
covering >an 1 2//- 7 5ec "1 2//-)
%n ;ovem0er 2=, 2//., @TaganitoA sent again another letter !ate!
;ovem0er 2=, 2//< to @the CIRA, to correct the perio! o* the a0ove claim *or
ta# cre!it9re*un! in the sai! amount o* P3,".-,..<)"3 as actuall, re*erring to
the perio! covering >anuar, 1, 2//- to 5ecem0er "1, 2//-)
(s the statutor, perio! within which to 2le a claim *or re*un! *or sai! input
'(T is a0out to lapse without action on the part o* the @CIRA, TB 2le! the
instant Petition *or Review on Ce0ruar, 1D, 2//D)
CT( 2n! 5ivision partiall, grante! TC4s claim) CT( *oun! that TC
complie! with the requirements o* Sec 112(() o* R( 3<2< to 0e entitle! to
ta# re*un!9cre!it o* input '(T attri0uta0le to +ero7rate! or e8ectivel, +ero7
rate! sales)
The case reache! the CT( en 0anc where it !eclare! that Section 112 (()
an! ($) o* the 1==D Ta# Co!e 0oth set *orth the rec6oning o* the 27,ear
prescriptive perio! *or 2ling a claim *or ta# re*un! or cre!it over input '(T to
0e the close o* the ta#a0le quarter when the sales were ma!e) It relie! on
the rulings in CIR v) (ichi Corging Compan, o* (sia, Inc an! CIR v) irant
Pag0ilao Corporation) $oth cases rule! that the 27,ear prescriptive perio! to
2le a re*un! *or input '(T arising *rom +ero7rate! sales shoul! 0e rec6one!
*rom the close o* the ta#a0le quarter when the sales were ma!e) (ichi
*urther emphasi+e! that the *ailure to await the !ecision o* the
Commissioner or the lapse o* 12/7!a, perio! prescri0e! in Section 112(5)
amounts to a premature 2ling)
The CT( en 0anc *oun! the TC4s :u!icial claim was prematurel, 2le!
0ecause TC 2le! its :u!icial claim on 1< Ce0 2//D) ( lapse o* onl, =2 !a,s
*rom the 2ling o* its a!ministrative claim 0e*ore the CIR in violaiton o* Sec
112(5))
PMC Case
%n %cto0er 21, 2//-, PC 2le! its %riginal '(T Return *or the thir! quarter
o* ta#a0le ,ear 2//- an! (men!e! '(T Return *or the same quarter on
5ecem0er 1, 2//-)
%n arch 2/, 2//., PC 2le! its claim *or re*un!9ta# cre!it o* the amount
o* P2< with the %ne Stop Shop Center o* the 5epartment o* Cinance) CIR
*aile! to act on the claim so on %cto0er 1D, 2//D, pursuant to Sections 112
an! 22= o* the ;IRC o* 1==D, as amen!e!, PC 2le! a Petition *or Review)
CT( 2n! 5ivision !enie! PC4s claim 0ecause it has prescri0e!) CT( en
0anc aErme! the 2n! !ivision)
Issues
(ll pertaining to '(T FF
Whether the petition or appeal from an adverse deision of the
Commisioner !as premature or late"
SRPC and TMC:
The petition was prematurel, 2le!) In 0oth cases, the petition was 2le!
0e*ore the e#piraiton o* the 12/7!a, waiting perio!) The SC hel! that G@iAt is
in!isputa0le that compliance with the 12/7!a, waiting perio! is mandator#
and $urisditinoal"G The Court state! that the *ailure to compl, with the
12/7!a, perio! ren!ers the petition premature an! thus without a cause o*
action) The e8ect o* which no :uris!iction is acquire! 0, the CT()
PMC:
The petition was 2le! late, 0eing 2le! more than 1 ,ear a*ter the e#piration
o* the "/ !a, perio! a*ter the 12/7!a, waiting perio!) Thus, the claim
alrea!, prescri0e!)
When should the ta%pa#er appl# for a ta% refund&redit'
Hithin 2 ,ears a*ter the close o* the ta#a0le quarter when the sales were
ma!e)
The two7,ear presecriptive perio! in Sec) 112(() re*ers to the perio! within
which the ta#pa,er can 2le an a!ministrative claim *or ta# re*un! or cre!it)
State! otherwise, the 27,ear prescriptive perio! !oes not re*er to the 2ling o*
the :u!icial claim with the CT( 0ut to the 2ling o* the a!ministrative claim
with the Commissioner)
When should the ta%pa#er appeal his ta% laim'
"/ !a,s *rom receipt o* the Commissioner4s !ecision, or i* the
Commissioner !oes not act on the ta#pa,er4s claim within the 12/7!a,
perio!, the ta#pa,er ma, appeal to the Court o* Ta# (ppeals within "/ !a,s
*rom the e#piration o* the 12/7!a, perio!)
Should the Court (rant a meritorious laim despite the non)
ompliane !ith mandator# and $urisditional onditions'
;o) The Court hel!:
This Court cannot !isregar! man!ator, an! :uris!ictional con!itions
man!ate! 0, law simpl, 0ecause the Commissioner chose not to contest the
numerical correctness o* th eclaim *or ta# re*un! or cre!it o* the ta#pa,er)
;on7compliance with man!ator, perio!s, non7o0servance o* prescriptive
perio!s, an! non7a!herence to a#hausetion o* a!ministrative reme!ies *ar a
ta#pa,er4s claim *or tea# re*un! or cre!it, whether or not the Commissioner
questions the numerical correctness o* the claim o* the ta#pa,er) This Court
should not esta*lish the preedent that non)ompliane !ith
mandator# and $urisditional onditions an *e e%used if the laim
is other!ise meritorious+ partiularl# in laims for ta% refunds or
redit @emphasis mineA