Harte-Hanks Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 205189, March 7, 2022
Facts:
1. Harte-Hanks Philippines, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines.
2. On March 23, 2010, petitioner filed a written application for refund or issuance of a tax credit for its excess and unutilized input value-added tax for the first to second quarters of 2008 with respondent CIR. The CIR did not act on the application.
3. On June 29, 20l0, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA Second Division, praying for the refund or issuance of a tax credit representing excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the second quarter of 2008.
4. On October 4, 2010, the CIR filed a supplemental answer, praying that the petition for review be dismissed for failure of petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to Section 112 (C) of the 1997 Tax Code.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to Section 112 (C) of the 1997 Tax Code.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court held that Section 112 (D) [now Section 112 (C)] of the NIRC clearly provides that the CIR has "120 days, from the date of the submission of the complete documents in support of the appli \cation [for tax refund/credit]," within which to grant or deny the claim. In case of full or partial denial by the CIR, the taxpayer's recourse is to file an appeal before the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the decision of the CIR. However, if end the 120-day period the CIR fails to act on the application for tax refund/credit, the remedy of the taxpayer is to appeal the inaction of the CIR to CTA within 30 days.
There is an exception to this general rule, however. BIR Ruling No. DA489-03, a general interpretative rule issued by the CIR pursuant to its power under Section 4 of the Tax Code, expressly states that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of petition for review."
In other words, the 120+30-day period is generally mandatory and jurisdictional from the effectivity of the 1997 NIRC on 1 January 1998, up to the present. By way of an exception, judicial claims filed during the window period from 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010, need not wait for the exhaustion of the 120-day period.
Even if petitioner seemed to have prematurely filed its judicial claim under the general rule, the Court, pursuant to BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, considers petitioner to have filed its judicial claim on time.
As a final note, the Court emphasizes that, although petitioner did not actually invoke BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 in any of its pleadings to justify the timeliness of its judicial claim with the CTA, the BIR Ruling applies to all taxpayers who filed their judicial claims within the window period of December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010. To limit the application of the BIR Ruling only to those who invoked it specifically would unduly strain the pronouncements in San Roque, Taganito and Philex.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment