The court ruled that the petitioner's claim for refund of business taxes paid from December 16, 2000 to December 15, 2002 was properly denied due to lack of an administrative claim filed with the local treasurer. Section 196 of the Local Government Code requires a written administrative claim be filed within 2 years of tax payment before any court case can be entertained. The court interpreted that the phrase "from the date the taxpayer becomes entitled to a refund or credit" in Section 196 does not mean the finality of a court decision declaring a tax void, but refers to the 2-year period for filing an administrative claim to promptly settle tax disputes.
The court ruled that the petitioner's claim for refund of business taxes paid from December 16, 2000 to December 15, 2002 was properly denied due to lack of an administrative claim filed with the local treasurer. Section 196 of the Local Government Code requires a written administrative claim be filed within 2 years of tax payment before any court case can be entertained. The court interpreted that the phrase "from the date the taxpayer becomes entitled to a refund or credit" in Section 196 does not mean the finality of a court decision declaring a tax void, but refers to the 2-year period for filing an administrative claim to promptly settle tax disputes.
Original Description:
Original Title
9. En Banc - Alabang Supermarket v. City of Muntinlupa
The court ruled that the petitioner's claim for refund of business taxes paid from December 16, 2000 to December 15, 2002 was properly denied due to lack of an administrative claim filed with the local treasurer. Section 196 of the Local Government Code requires a written administrative claim be filed within 2 years of tax payment before any court case can be entertained. The court interpreted that the phrase "from the date the taxpayer becomes entitled to a refund or credit" in Section 196 does not mean the finality of a court decision declaring a tax void, but refers to the 2-year period for filing an administrative claim to promptly settle tax disputes.
The court ruled that the petitioner's claim for refund of business taxes paid from December 16, 2000 to December 15, 2002 was properly denied due to lack of an administrative claim filed with the local treasurer. Section 196 of the Local Government Code requires a written administrative claim be filed within 2 years of tax payment before any court case can be entertained. The court interpreted that the phrase "from the date the taxpayer becomes entitled to a refund or credit" in Section 196 does not mean the finality of a court decision declaring a tax void, but refers to the 2-year period for filing an administrative claim to promptly settle tax disputes.
ALABANG SUPERMARKET CORPORATION Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC of
VS Muntinlupa seeking refund/tax credit. In 2003, they
CITY GOVERNMENT OF MUNTINLUPA supplemented the complaint to include payments made during CTA EB 386 February 12, 2009 the period from Dec 16, 2000 to Dec 15, 2002. UY, J: RTC dismissed complaint for refund. CTA Division [Petition for Doctrine: On Tax Refund and Tax Credit: The reckoning Review] partially granted the petitioner’s claim. Granted periods for the filing of a claim for refund in Sec 196 of the refund by way of tax credit for the excess business taxes paid LGC should be interpreted so as to accomplish the evident for the period of Jan 2, 1999 to Dec 15, 2000 only subject to purpose viz the settlement of the rights of the taxpayer vis-a- the determination of the RTC. However, the claim vis the government, at the earliest opportunity. The phrase representing taxes paid during Dec 16, 2000 to Dec 15, 2002 “from the date the taxpayer becomes entitled to a refund or was denied on the ground that records were wanting of any credit” in Sec 196 should not be interpreted to mean the written administrative claim for refund filed with the local finality of the decision of a court declaring the tax measure treasurer for said amount. CTA En Banc affirms this. void, even without a timely claim for refund. Issue: W/N the claim for refund of taxes paid was properly Facts: denied on the basis of lack of an administrative claim for Alabang Supermarket Coproration operates the Alabang branch refund with the local treasurer during the 2 year period – Yes of the Makati Supermarket, a distributor and dealer of, among others, liquor, beer, wine, distilled spirits, cigarettes and Ratio: tobacco products. Petitioner’s argument: “from the date the taxpayer is entitled to refund or credit” should be construed to mean 2 years from On December 1998, Muntinlupa enacted City Ordinance 98-015 the finality of the Court’s declaration that the respondent’s imposing a 3% business tax on the sale and distribution of tax ordinance is illegal. [Citing Allied Banking vs QC Case] alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Respondent’s argument: Sec 196 of the LGC was explicit that Petitioner paid but was aggrieved by said erroneous collections it is necessary for the claim of refund of any TFC to file its and wrote the BLGF of DoF asking for an opinion regarding the claim with the local treasurer within 2 years from the payment 3% business tax. BLGF issued an opinion in their favour. of TFC and no case shall be entertained in any court absent this written claim being shown or proven 2001, Petitioner then wrote the City Treasurer of Muntinlupa seeking the refund/tax credit of the 3% business tax paid for the period Jan 1999 to Dec 2000. Court’s Ruling: Allied Banking Corporation case not applicable "from the date the taxpayer becomes entitled to a refund or since the non-filing of an administrative claim was not an issue credit" in Section 196 should not be interpreted to mean the in that case. finality of the decision of a court declaring the tax measure void, even without a timely claim for refund. Otherwise, "Section 196. Claim for Refund of Tax Credit.-No case or claims for refund will be filed even after several years from proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery payment of the tax due, merely because the tax ordinance of any tax, fee, or charge erroneously or illegally collected was declared void. And the filing of administrative and until a written claim for refund or credit has been filed with judicial claims for refund shall be endless. This the local treasurer. No case or proceeding shall be entertained interpretation would give the taxpayer, who was not able to in any court after the expiration of two (2) years from the date question the legality or constitutionality of the tax measure of the payment of such tax, fee, or charge, or from the date within the period provided in Section 187, the right to the taxpayer is entitled to a refund or credit." (Emphasis instead file a claim for refund with the court under Section Ours) 196, absent the filing of a timely administrative claim. In effect, the prescriptive periods provided by law would be Clearly from the above quoted provision, no case or rendered naught and meaningless. proceeding may be entertained by any courts absent showing that petitioner has a written claim for refund of erroneous or This could not have been the intention of lawmakers. A excessive payment of any tax, free or charge filed with the taxpayer who believes that he has paid a tax imposed under a local treasurer prior to its filing before any court. void ordinance should timely exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the filing of a judicial claim or timely Moreover, it should be noted that two' reckoning periods are question its constitutionality and legality. Petitioner's failure provided by law for the filing of a case or proceeding, that is to file the appropriate administrative claim for· refund for from the date of payment of the tax, and from the date the period December 16, 2000 to September 2002, cannot the taxpayer becomes entitled to the refund. However, be countenanced. More so, since it has been able to file a petitioner's interpretation of the phrase "from the date the timely administrative claim for the 3% business tax it paid taxpayer becomes entitled to the refund" is not inconsonance covering January 2, 1999 to December 15, 2000. It is clearly with the intent of the law since Section 196 should not be read aware of the requirements for the filing of an administrative in isolation, but in relation with other provisions of the LGC. claim set forth by law. Its manifest error cannot be cured at this point. The reckoning periods for the claim of refund in Sec 196 should be interpreted so as to accomplish the evident purpose, viz., the settlement of the rights of the taxpayer vis-a-vis the government, at the earliest opportunity. The phrase