Aichi filed a claim for VAT refund totaling P3,891,123.82 for the period of July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002 on September 30, 2004. The CIR argued the claim was filed beyond the two-year period because 2004 was a leap year, making the deadline September 29, 2004. However, the Court held that based on the Administrative Code of 1987, a year consists of 12 calendar months, not 365 days as the Civil Code states. Therefore, as long as the claim was filed within the month of September, it was within the prescriptive period, regardless of it being a leap year. The filing was deemed valid and the CIR's argument was rejected.
Aichi filed a claim for VAT refund totaling P3,891,123.82 for the period of July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002 on September 30, 2004. The CIR argued the claim was filed beyond the two-year period because 2004 was a leap year, making the deadline September 29, 2004. However, the Court held that based on the Administrative Code of 1987, a year consists of 12 calendar months, not 365 days as the Civil Code states. Therefore, as long as the claim was filed within the month of September, it was within the prescriptive period, regardless of it being a leap year. The filing was deemed valid and the CIR's argument was rejected.
Aichi filed a claim for VAT refund totaling P3,891,123.82 for the period of July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002 on September 30, 2004. The CIR argued the claim was filed beyond the two-year period because 2004 was a leap year, making the deadline September 29, 2004. However, the Court held that based on the Administrative Code of 1987, a year consists of 12 calendar months, not 365 days as the Civil Code states. Therefore, as long as the claim was filed within the month of September, it was within the prescriptive period, regardless of it being a leap year. The filing was deemed valid and the CIR's argument was rejected.
Aichi filed a claim for refund/credit VAT for the period July 1, 2002
to September 30, 2002 in the total amount of P3,891,123.82. He
filed it on On September 30, 2004. On even date, respondent filed a Petition for Review with the CTA for the refund/credit of the same input VAT. (so magkasunod yung case sa CIR and CTA) On January 4, 2008, the CTA partially granted Aichis claim for refund/credit. Dissatisfied, CIR filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, insisting that the administrative and the judicial claims (yung tax refund/credit) were filed beyond the twoyear period. That since the year 2004 was a leap year, the filing of the claim for tax refund/credit should be filed only until September 29, 2004. (so sabi ni CIR di pwede mag collect si AICHI ng tax refund, ibig sabihin ng tax refund ibabalik ng Internal revenue yung binayad ni AICHI. Di na daw pwede kasi lagpas na sa date of filing. Dapat hanggang September 29 lang deadline kasi leap year) He cited as basis Article 13 of the Civil Code, 17 which provides that when the law speaks of a year, it is equivalent to 365 days. Issue: WON the 2 year prescriptive period for the filing of Tax refund has expired Held: No. Relying on Article 13 of the Civil Code, which provides that a year is equivalent to 365 days, and taking into account the fact that the year 2004 was a leap year, CIR submits that the two-year period to file a claim for tax refund/ credit for the period July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002 expired on September 29, 2004. We do not agree. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Primetown Property Group, Inc. we said that as between the Civil Code, which provides that a year is equivalent to 365 days, and the Administrative Code of 1987, which states that a year is composed of 12 calendar months, it is the latter that must prevail following the legal maxim, Lex posteriori derogat priori. Both Article 13 of the Civil Code and Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 deal with the same subject matter the computation of legal periods.
Under the Civil Code, a year is equivalent to 365 days whether it
be a regular year or a leap year but under the Administrative Code of 1987, a year is composed of 12 calendar months. Thus, under the Administrative Code of 1987, the number of days is irrelevant. (in short as long as within the month sya valid sya kasi following admin code, 12 calendar months and primordial consideration). The filing of the Tax refund/ credit was within the prescriptive period. (needless to say, na deny pa rin yung tax refund nito kasi in violation sya sa procedural law. Kasi diba una nag file sya sa CIR, tapos without waiting for the resolution nag file din sya sa CTA ng review)