Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    VISAYAS GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY v. COMMISSION ON INTERNAL REVENUE

    Uploaded by

    SS
    The Court found that VGPC's claim was filed between the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, which stated that taxpayers did not need to wait the 120 days, and the later ruling in Aichi that established the 120-day rule. Therefore, VGPC was justified in filing early based on the BIR ruling in effect at that time. The Court granted VGPC's petition and ordered a tax credit certificate to be issued for the substantiated amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    VISAYAS GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY v. COMMISSION ON INTERNAL REVENUE

    Uploaded by

    SS
    48 views2 pages
    The Court found that VGPC's claim was filed between the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, which stated that taxpayers did not need to wait the 120 days, and the later ruling in Aichi that established the 120-day rule. Therefore, VGPC was justified in filing early based on the BIR ruling in effect at that time. The Court granted VGPC's petition and ordered a tax credit certificate to be issued for the substantiated amount.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court found that VGPC's claim was filed between the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, which stated that taxpayers did not need to wait the 120 days, and the later ruling in Aichi that established the 120-day rule. Therefore, VGPC was justified in filing early based on the BIR ruling in effect at that time. The Court granted VGPC's petition and ordered a tax credit certificate to be issued for the substantiated amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views2 pages

    VISAYAS GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY v. COMMISSION ON INTERNAL REVENUE

    Uploaded by

    SS
    The Court found that VGPC's claim was filed between the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, which stated that taxpayers did not need to wait the 120 days, and the later ruling in Aichi that established the 120-day rule. Therefore, VGPC was justified in filing early based on the BIR ruling in effect at that time. The Court granted VGPC's petition and ordered a tax credit certificate to be issued for the substantiated amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VISAYAS GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY v.

    COMMISION ON INTERNAL REVENUE


    G.R. No. 205279, April 26, 2017.

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Visayas Geothermal Power Company (VGPC) is a special limited


    partnership duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws with its principal office at
    Milagro, Ormoc City, Leyte. It is principally engaged in the business of power generation
    through geothermal energy and the sale of generated power to the Philippine National
    Oil Company (PNOC), pursuant to the Energy Conversion Agreement. On December 6,
    2006, it filed with the BIR its Quarterly VAT Returns for four (4) quarters of taxable year
    2005 on April 25, 2005, July 25, 2005, October 25, 2006, and January 20, 2006,
    respectively. Pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9136 which treated sales of generated
    power subject to VAT to a zero percent (0%) rate starting June 26, 2001, it filed its
    administrative claim for tax refund with the BIR. On January3, 2007, while its
    administrative claim was pending, VGPC filed its judicial claim though a Petition for
    Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). On April 17, 2009, the CTA Second
    Division partially granted the petition based on the amount that was substantiated by
    evidence. The CTA Second Division denied the separate motions for partial
    reconsideration filed by VGPC and the CIR. Thus, both VGPC and the CIR appealed to
    the CTA En Banc.

    CTA En Banc reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the CTA
    Second Division, and dismissed the original petition for review for having been filed
    prematurely, citing the Aichi case. CTA En Banc explained that although VGPC
    seasonably filed its administrative claim within the two-year prescriptive period, its
    judicial claim filed with the CTA Second Division was prematurely filed under Section
    112 (D) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The Motion for Reconsideration
    of VGPC was denied.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the judicial claim of VGPC was prematurely filed

    RULING:

    No. The CTA can only acquire jurisdiction over a case after the CIR has rendered
    its decision, or after the lapse of the period for the CIR to act, in which case such
    inaction is considered a denial. A petition filed prior to the lapse of the 120-day period
    prescribed under said Section would be premature for violating the doctrine on the
    exhaustion of administrative remedies. This was a decision made in Aichi and upheld in
    San Roque case. However, the petitioner’s claim was an exception to the mandatory
    and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period because it was filed between
    issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on December 10, 2003 and promulgation of
    Aichi in October 6, 2010.
    The Court in San Roque noted that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, dated December
    10, 2003, expressly stated 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." Aichi shall not be applied prospectively. The Atlas doctrine, which held that
    claims for refund or credit of input VAT must comply with the two-year prescriptive
    period under Section 229, should be effective only from its promulgation on June 8,
    2007 until its abandonment on September 12, 2008 in Mirant case. Petition is granted
    and tax credit certificate will be issued based on the amount with substantive evidence.

    STATUTORY PRINCIPLE APPLIED:

    Following the well-settled verba legis doctrine, the law should be applied exactly


    as worded since it is clear, plain, and unequivocal. Stare decisis is also applied in
    standing by the precedent wherein principles applied in previous cases is adhered in
    cases where facts are substantially the same.

    You might also like