Nippon Express (Philippines) Corp. vs.

CIR
G.R. 191495
July 23,2018

Facts:

Nippon Express is a dometic corporation registered with the Large Taxpayer District
Office (LTDO) of the BIR, Revenue Region No. 8 – Makati, as a VAT taxpayer.
On 30 March 2005, Nippon Express filed with the LTDO, Revenue Region No. 8, an
application for tax credit of its excess/unused input taxes attributable to zeero-rated sales for
all four taxable quarters in 2004 pursuant to Section 112 of the National Revenue Code.

Issue:
Ruling:

Steag State Power, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

G.R. 205282
January 14, 2019

Facts:

Steag State Power (Steag) is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in power

generation and sale of electricity to the National Power Corporation under a Build, Operate,
Transfer Scheme. It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue as a value-added tax
taxpayer with Tax Identification No. 004-626-938-000. In 2003, Steag started started building its
power plant inside the PHIVIDEC Industrial Estate-Misamis Oriental.

Issue: Whether Steag was able to substantiate its claim for a refund or tax credit, allegedlty
representing its unutilized input tax paid on purchases and imporattions of capital goods

FACTS: Steag State Power, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in power

generation and sale of electricity to National Power Corporation. The
petitioner filed its quarterly value-added tax returns from the first to fourth
quarters of years 2004 and 2005. Subsequently, petitioner filed before the
Bureau of the Internal Revenue District an administrative claim for refund
of its alleged unutilized input value-added tax payments on capital goods.
Due to the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, petitioner
filed on April 20, 2006 a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court
of Tax Appeals for its refund for taxable year 2004, and for the year 2005
through another petition filed on December 27, 2006. The CTA Special First
Division dismissed the consolidated cases for lack of jurisdiction. The CTA
En Banc affirmed the dismissal on the ground that the appeal was filed late.

ISSUE: Whether or not the claims for refund by petitioner were timely filed.

HELD. NEGATIVE. Under Section 112 (D) of the National Internal Revenue
Code, a taxpayer may appeal the Commissioner’s denial or inaction only
within 30 days when the decision that denies the claim is received, or when
the 120-day period given to the Commissioner to decide on the claim
expires. Said provision must be applied exactly as worded since it is clear,
plain, and unequivocal. In this case, since petitioner filed its judicial claims
way beyond the 30-day period to appeal, the Court of Tax Appeals lost its
jurisdiction over the Petitions.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Transfield Philippines, Inc.

G.R. No 211449
January 16, 2019

Facts:
Transfield received copies of Final Assessment Notice (FAN) issued by CIR for deficiency
income tax, expanded withholding tax (EWT), and value-added tax (VAT), inclusive of interest
and compromise penalties for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002.
On June 5, 2007, Transfield filed a protest with the BIR. Without acting on the said
protest, the BIR issued the First Collection Letter, demanding immediate payment of the
assessments.
Issue:
Ruling: