0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
26 просмотров2 страницы
This case involves a dispute over a corporation's claim for refund or credit of input VAT for the period of July 1998 to September 1998 totaling PHP3,095,702.34. The corporation filed an administrative claim with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on the same date, within two years of the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made.
The main issues are: 1) whether to apply the Civil Code provision of 365 days or the Administrative Code provision of 360 days to compute the 2-year prescriptive period, 2) whether the prescriptive period begins from the close of the taxable quarter or the
This case involves a dispute over a corporation's claim for refund or credit of input VAT for the period of July 1998 to September 1998 totaling PHP3,095,702.34. The corporation filed an administrative claim with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on the same date, within two years of the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made.
The main issues are: 1) whether to apply the Civil Code provision of 365 days or the Administrative Code provision of 360 days to compute the 2-year prescriptive period, 2) whether the prescriptive period begins from the close of the taxable quarter or the
This case involves a dispute over a corporation's claim for refund or credit of input VAT for the period of July 1998 to September 1998 totaling PHP3,095,702.34. The corporation filed an administrative claim with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on the same date, within two years of the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made.
The main issues are: 1) whether to apply the Civil Code provision of 365 days or the Administrative Code provision of 360 days to compute the 2-year prescriptive period, 2) whether the prescriptive period begins from the close of the taxable quarter or the
Respondent Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc., a Philippine corporation, is registered as (VAT) entity. On eptem!er "#, $##%, respondent filed a claim for ref&nd'credit of inp&t VAT for the period (&ly ), $##$ to eptem!er "#, $##$ in the total amo&nt of P",*+),)$".*$ ,ith the petitioner (CIR), thro&gh (-OF). On e.en date, respondent filed a Petition for Re.ie, / ,ith the CTA for the ref&nd'credit of the same inp&t VAT. The case ,as doc0eted as CTA Case 1o. /#23 and ,as raffled to the econd -i.ision of the CTA. In the Petition for Re.ie,, respondent alleged that for the period (&ly ), $##$ to eptem!er "#, $##$, it generated and recorded 4ero5rated sales in the amo&nt of P)"),/+),"++.##, * ,hich ,as paid6 that for the said period, it inc&rred and paid inp&t VAT amo&nting to P",+)$,#**.)% from p&rchases and importation attri!&ta!le to its 4ero5rated sales6 )# and that in its application for ref&nd'credit filed ,ith the -OF it only claimed the amo&nt of P",*+),)$".*$. )) In response, petitioner filed his Ans,er, raising the follo,ing special and affirmati.e defenses, among others, that Petitioner m&st pro.e that the claim ,as filed ,ithin the t,o ($) year period prescri!ed in ection $$+ of the Ta7 Code6 Trial ens&ed, after ,hich, on (an&ary %, $##*, the econd -i.ision of the CTA rendered a -ecision partially granting respondent8s claim for ref&nd'credit. The CTA r&les that In compliance ,ith the third re9&isite, petitioner filed its administrati.e claim for ref&nd on eptem!er "#, $##% (:7hi!it ;1;) and the present Petition for Re.ie, on eptem!er "#, $##%, !oth ,ithin the t,o ($) year prescripti.e period from the close of the ta7a!le 9&arter ,hen the sales ,ere made, ,hich is from eptem!er "#, $##$. The econd -i.ision of the CTA, ho,e.er, denied petitioner8s <otion for Partial Reconsideration for lac0 of merit. Petitioner th&s ele.ated .ia a Petition for Re.ie, to the CTA En Banc ,hich affirmed the econd -i.ision8s -ecision allo,ing the partial ta7 ref&nd'credit in fa.or of respondent. =o,e.er, as to the rec0oning point for co&nting the t,o5 year period, the CTA :n >anc r&led? Petitioner arg&es that the administrati.e and @&dicial claims ,ere filed !eyond the period allo,ed !y la, and hence, the honora!le Co&rt has no @&risdiction o.er the same. In addition, petitioner f&rther contends that respondentAs filing of the administrati.e and @&dicial BclaimsC effecti.ely eliminates the a&thority of the honora!le Co&rt to e7ercise @&risdiction o.er the @&dicial claim. ISSES 1. For purposes of computing the 2 year prescriptive period, should Article 13 of the Civil Code apply which provides that a year is euivalent to 3!" days or the Administrative Code which provides that a year is 3!# days. 2. $hether the rec%oning of the 2 year prescriptive period commences from the close of the ta&a'le uarter when the sales were made or from the time the input (A) was paid. 3. $hether or not the filing of the *udicial claim which was simultaneous with the administrative claim was premature. R!ING 1. "2# days p&rs&ant to the Administrati.e Code. In Commissioner of Internal Re.en&e .. Primeto,n Property Dro&p, Inc., %+ ,e said that as !et,een the Ci.il Code, ,hich pro.ides that a year is e9&i.alent to "23 days, and the Administrati.e Code of )+*/, ,hich states that a year is composed of )$ calendar months, it is the latter that m&st pre.ail follo,ing the legal ma7im, Ee7 posteriori derogat priori. $. The $ year prescripti.e period shall rec0on from close of the ta7a!le 9&arter ,hen the sales ,ere made and not from the date of payment. The former applies to ref&nds or ta7 credits of the inp&t ta7 ,hile the latter refers to the reco.ery of ta7 erroneo&sly or illegally collected. In the case at !ar, ,hat is in.ol.es a ta7 ref&nd or a ta7 credit. =ence, the former shall pre.ail. ". &!section (A) of the said pro.ision states that ;any VAT5registered person, ,hose sales are 4ero5rated or effecti.ely 4ero5rated may, ,ithin t,o years after the close of the ta7a!le 9&arter ,hen the sales ,ere made, apply for the iss&ance of a ta7 credit certificate or ref&nd of credita!le inp&t ta7 d&e or paid attri!&ta!le to s&ch sales.; The phrase ;,ithin t,o ($) years 7 7 7 apply for the iss&ance of a ta7 credit certificate or ref&nd; refers to applications for ref&nd'credit filed ,ith the CIR and not to appeals made to the CTA. This is apparent in the first paragraph of s&!section (-) of the same pro.ision, ,hich states that the CIR has ;)$# days from the s&!mission of complete doc&ments in s&pport of the application filed in accordance ,ith &!sections (A) and (>); ,ithin ,hich to decide on the claim.