CASE 2014-0015: PROCTER & GAMBLE ASIA PTE LTD., Petitioner, – versus – COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent (G.R. No. 202071, 19 FEBRUARY 2014, SERENO, CJ.) (BRIEF TITLE: PROCTER & GAMBLE VS. CIR).
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in CTA EB No. 746 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. This case is hereby REMANDED to the CTA First Division for further proceedings and a determination of whether the claims of petitioner for refund or tax credit of unutilized input value- added tax are valid.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES:
“On 3 June 2013, we required 12 respondent to submit its Comment, which it filed on 4 December 2013. Citing the recent case CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, respondent counters that the 120-day period to file judicial claims for a refund or tax credit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply with the waiting period violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, rendering the judicial claim premature. Thus, the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over the judicial claim.
Respondent is correct on this score. However, it fails to mention that San Roque also recognized the validity of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. The ruling 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.
The Court, in San Roque, ruled that equitable estoppel had set in when respondent issued BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. This was a general interpretative rule, which effectively misled all taxpayers into filing premature judicial claims with the CTA. Thus, taxpayers could rely on the ruling from its issuance on 10 December 2003 up to its reversal on 6 October 2010, when CIR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, lnc. 16 was promulgated.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 