Rohm Apollo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines, Inc. (Rohm Apollo), a VAT-registered corporation and an Ecozone Export Enterprise, is engaged in manufacturing semiconductor products. Prior to commencing operations, Rohm Apollo engaged a contractor for factory construction and made substantial payments for these services. Rohm Apollo treated these payments as purchases of capital goods and subsequently filed an administrative claim with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for a refund or tax credit of unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) amounting to P30,359,615.40, attributable to these capital goods purchases made in July and August 2000. 2. Procedural History: Rohm Apollo filed its administrative claim for the refund of unutilized input VAT on December 11, 2000. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) failed to act on the claim within the prescribed 120-day period, which expired on April 10, 2001. Instead of filing a judicial claim within 30 days thereafter, Rohm Apollo filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on September 11, 2002, mistakenly believing the claim was timely as long as it was filed within the two-year prescriptive period for administrative claims. The CTA First Division denied the claim, a decision affirmed by the CTA En Banc. Both lower tax courts found the judicial claim to be filed out of time. 3. The Petition: This case reaches the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the decisions of the CTA En Banc. Rohm Apollo argues that it satisfied all legal requirements for a valid claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the CTA acquired jurisdiction over the claim, specifically focusing on the timeliness of the judicial claim filed after the CIR's inaction on the administrative claim. The petitioner contends that its judicial claim was filed within the permissible period, challenging the CTA's interpretation of the 120-day waiting period and the subsequent 30-day period for filing a judicial appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Tax Appeals acquired jurisdiction over the claim for the refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT, considering the timeliness of the judicial claim. Whether the judicial claim for refund or tax credit was filed within the prescriptive period, independent of jurisdictional considerations.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The judicial claim for the refund or credit of unutilized input VAT was belatedly filed, and thus the CTA lost jurisdiction over Rohm Apollo’s claim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and timeliness of the judicial claim: The Supreme Court held that the judicial claim for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT was filed out of time. Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code provides for two periods: a 120-day waiting period for the CIR to act on the administrative claim, and a subsequent 30-day period for the taxpayer to file a judicial claim with the CTA if the CIR denies the claim or fails to act within the 120 days. In this case, the CIR failed to act on Rohm Apollo's administrative claim filed on December 11, 2000, within the 120-day period ending on April 10, 2001. Consequently, Rohm Apollo should have filed its judicial claim within 30 days from April 10, 2001, which would be until May 10, 2001. However, Rohm Apollo filed its Petition for Review with the CTA only on September 11, 2002, which was significantly beyond the mandatory 30-day period. On the issue of the prescriptive period: The Court emphasized that the taxpayer's belief that the judicial claim could be filed within the two-year prescriptive period for administrative claims was erroneous. This mistaken notion was clarified in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, which established that the two-year period applies only to the administrative claim, while the 30-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional for the judicial claim. The Court reiterated the ruling in San Roque that the 30-day period to appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, and this rule applies whether there is a denial or inaction by the CIR. The exception provided by BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, which excused premature filing, was not applicable here because Rohm Apollo's claim was not prematurely filed but late. Furthermore, the period covered by the BIR Ruling (December 10, 2003, to October 5, 2010) had not yet commenced when Rohm Apollo filed its judicial claim on September 11, 2002. Therefore, the CTA correctly dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction due to the late filing.
Main Doctrine
A judicial claim for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT must be filed within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the one hundred twenty (120) day period granted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the administrative claim, or within thirty (30) days from receipt of the denial of the claim. Failure to comply with this mandatory and jurisdictional period results in the loss of jurisdiction by the Court of Tax Appeals over the claim.