1. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.

SAN ROQUE POWER

CORPORATION

G.R. No. 187485 February 12, 2013

FACTS:
In1997, San Roque Power Corporation (San Roque) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA) with the National Power Corporation (NPC) by building the San Roque Multipurpose Project in
San Manuel, Pangasinan. The San Roque Multi-Purpose Project allegedly incurred, excess input
VAT in the amount of P559,709,337.54 for taxable year 2001 which it declared in its Quarterly VAT
Returns filed for the same year. San Roque duly filed with the BIR separate claims for refund,
amounting to P559,709,337.54, representing unutilized input taxes as declared in its VAT returns for
taxable year 2001. However, on March 28, 2003, San Roque filed amended Quarterly VAT Returns
for the year 2001 since it increased its unutilized input VAT To the amount of P560,200,283.14. San
Roque filed with the BIR on the same date, separate amended claims for refund in the aggregate
amount of P560,200,283.14. On April 10, 2003, a mere 13 days after it filed its amended
administrative claim with the CIR on March 28, 2003, San Roque filed a Petition for Review with the
CTA. CIR alleged that the claim by San Roque was prematurely filed with the CTA.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not San Roque is entitled to tax refund?
RULING:
NO. San Roque is not entitled to a tax refund because it failed to comply with the mandatory and
jurisdictional requirement of waiting 120 days before filing its judicial claim.
San Roque filed a Petition for Review without waiting for the 120-day period to lapse before filing its
judicial claim. Compliance with the 120-day waiting period is mandatory and jurisdictional, under RA
8424 or the Tax Reform Act of 1997. Failure to comply renders the petition void. It violates the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and renders the petition premature and without a
cause of action, with the effect that the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s petition.
Article 5 of the Civil Code provides, "Acts executed against provisions of mandatory or prohibitory
laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity." Thus, San Roque’s petition
with the CTA is a mere scrap of paper. Well-settled is the rule that tax refunds or credits, just like tax
exemptions, are strictly construed against the taxpayer.
11. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PASCOR REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORP. GR. NO. 128315, JUNE 19, 1999

FACTS:
Pascor Realty and Devt Corp. (PRDC) was found to be liable for tax deficiency for the years
1986,1987 and 1988. The CIR filed a criminal complaint against PRDC with the DOJ for tax
evasion. Attached to the criminal complaint was a Joint Affidavit executed by the tax
examiners. PRDC filed an Urgent Request for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation with the CIR,
disputing the tax assessment and tax liability, but was denied upon the ground that no formal
assessment has yet been issued by the Commissioner.
PRDC then filed a protest with the CTA and averred that the Joint Affidavit attached to the
criminal complaint is tantamount to a formal assessment notice and hence can be subjected to
protest; that there is a simultaneous assessment and filing of criminal case; that the same is contrary
to due process because it is its theory that an assessment should come first before a criminal case of
tax evasion should be filed. The CIR filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that the CTA
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, as there was no formal assessment issued
against the petitioners. The CTA denied the said motion to dismiss. It ruled that the Joint Affidavit
constitutes an assessment; that an assessment is defined as simply the statement of the details and
the amount of tax due from a taxpayer; thus, the Joint Affidavit which contains a computation of the
tax liability of PRDC is in effect an assessment which can be the subject of a protest. CA affirmed the
CTA.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the criminal complaint for tax evasion can be construed as an assessment. -NO2.
Whether or not an assessment is necessary before criminal charges for tax evasion
may be instituted.
HELD:
NO, an assessment not only contains a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment
within a prescribed period. It signals the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the
taxpayer. In the case at bar, the BIR examiners’ Joint Affidavit which was attached to the criminal
complaint filed with the DOJ against PRDC, did not constitute an assessment. The Joint Affidavit
served the purpose of supporting and substantiating the criminal complaint for tax evasion, and was
not meant to be a notice of the tax due and a demand to the taxpayer (PRDC) for payment thereof.2.
(Extra issue) Section 222 of the NIRC specifically states that in cases where a false or fraudulent
return is submitted or in cases of failure to file a return such as this case, proceedings in court may be
commenced without an assessment. Furthermore, Section 205 of the same Code clearly mandates
that the civil and criminal aspects of the case may be pursued simultaneously.

21. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and ARTURO V. PARCERO

vs. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC
G.R. No. 162155               August 28, 2007
CORONA, J.:
FACTS:
Gilbert Yap, Vice Chair of Primetown applied for a refund or credit of income tax which Primetown
paid in 1997. He claimed that they are entitled for a refund because they suffered losses but they still
paid their quarterly income tax and remitted creditable withholding tax from real estate sales to BIR.
Hence, they were claiming for a refund. Revenue officer Elizabeth Santos required Primetown to
submit additional documents to which the latter complied with. However, its claim was not acted upon
which prompted it to file a petition for review in CTA. The CTA dismissed the petition as it was filed
beyond the 2-year prescriptive period for filing a judicial claim for tax refund according to Sec 229 of
NIRC. According to CTA, the two-year period is equivalent to 730 days pursuant to Art 13 of NCC.
Since Primetown filed its final adjustment return on April 14, 1998 and that year 2000 was a leap
year, the petition was filed 731 days after Primetown filed its final adjusted return. Hence, beyond the
reglementary period. Primetown appealed to CA. CA reversed the decision of CTA. Hence, this
appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the claim for tax refund was filed within the two-year period?
RULING:
YES, respondents petition was filed (April 14, 2000) on the last day of the 24 th calendar month from
the day the respondent filed its final adjusted return (April 14, 1998). Both Article 13 of the Civil Code
and Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code deals with the same subject – the
computation of legal periods. Under the Civil Code, a year is equivalent to 365 days whether it be
regular or leap year. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, a year is composed of 12 calendar
months. The number of days is irrelevant then irrelevant.
In this case, respondent’s petition was filed on the last day of the 24 th calendar month from the day it
filed its final adjusted return. Thus, Primetown is entitled for the refund since it is filed within the 2-
year reglementary period.