apollo semiconductor philippines vs commissioner january 14, 2015 gr no. 168950

7/24/2019 Apollo Semiconductor Philippines vs Commissioner January 14, 2015 Gr No. 168950

1/3

APOLLO SEMICONDUCTOR PHILIPPINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE, G.R. No. 168950, J!"#$ 1%, &015

CJ Sereno

FACTS'

Petitioner Rohm Apollo is a domestic corporation registered with the Securities andExchange Commission. It is also registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authorityas an Ecozone Export Enterprise. Rohm Apollo is in the usiness o! manu!acturingsemiconductor products" particularly microchip transistors and tantalium capacitors atthe People#s $echnology Complex % Special Economic Zone" &arangay 'aduya" CarmonaCa(ite.)urther" it is registered with the &ureau o! Internal Re(enue *&IR+ as a (alue,addedtaxpayer.hanRoles(irtual-awlirary

Sometime in June ///" prior to the commencement o! its operations on 0 Septemer//0" Rohm Apollo engaged the ser(ices o! Shimizu Philippine Contractors" Inc. *Shimizu+!or the construction o! a !actory.)or ser(ices rendered y Shimizu" petitioner made initialpayments o! P012"330"224.2 on 5 July /// and P06"675"16.32 on 6 August

///.hanRoles(irtual-awlirary

It should e noted at this point that Section 00*&+" in relation to Section 00*A+ o! the0115 $ax Code" allows a taxpayer to 8le an application !or the re!und or tax credit o!unutilized input 9A$ when it comes to the purchase o! capital goods. $he pro(ision sets atime !rame !or the 8ling o! the application at two years !rom the close o! the taxale:uarter when the purchase was made.

;oing ac< to the case" petitioner treated the payments as capital goods purchases andthus 8led with the &IR an administrati(e claim !or the re!und or credit o! accumulatedunutilized creditale input taxes on 00 =ecemer ///. As the close o! the taxale:uarter when the purchases were made was 6/ Septemer ///" the administrati(e

claim was 8led well within the two,year prescripti(e period.

Pursuant to Section 00*=+o! the 0115 $ax Code" the Commissioner o! Internal Re(enue*CIR+ had a period o! 0/ days !rom the 8ling o! the application !or a re!und or credit on00 =ecemer ///" or until 0/ April //0" to act on the claim. $he waiting period"howe(er" lapsed without any action y the CIR on the claim.

Instead o! 8ling a >udicial claim within 6/ days !rom the lapse o! the 0/,day period on 0/April" or until 0/ 'ay //0" Rohm Apollo 8led a Petition !or Re(iew with the C$A docudicial claimhad to e 8led within the two,year prescripti(e period ending on 6/ Septemer//.hanRoles(irtual-awlirary

@n 5 'ay //4" the C$A )irst =i(ision rendered a =ecision denying the >udicial claim !ora re!und or tax credit. In support o! its ruling" the C$A )irst =i(ision held" among others"that petitioner must ha(e at least sumitted its 9A$ return !or the third :uarter o! //0"since it was in that period that it egan its usiness operations. $he purpose was to (eri!yi! indeed petitioner did not carry o(er the claimed input 9A$ to the third :uarter or thesucceeding :uarters.

@n 04 July //4" petitioner Rohm Apollo 8led a 'otion !or Reconsideration" ut the taxcourt stood y its =ecision.nRoles(irtual-awlirary


2/3

@n 02 January //3" the taxpayer ele(ated the case to the C$A En Banc(ia a Petition !orRe(iew.hanRoles(irtual-awlirary

@n June //3" the C$A En Bancrendered its =ecision denying Rohm Apollo#s Petition!or Re(iew.$he appellate tax court held that the !ailure to present the 9A$ returns !or thesuse:uent taxale year pro(ed to e !atal to the claim !or a re!undtax credit"

considering that it could not e determined whether the claimed amount to e re!undedremained unutilized.

Petitioner 8led a 'otion !or Reconsideration o! the =ecision" ut it was denied !or lac< o!merit.

Persistent" the taxpayer 8led this Rule 43 Petition" arguing that it has satis8ed all thelegal re:uirements !or a (alid claim !or re!und or tax credit o! unutilized input9A$.cralawre

ISSUE'

Bhether the C$A ac:uired >urisdiction o(er the claim !or the re!und or tax credit o!unutilized input 9A$

RULING'

NO.

The judicial claim was fled out o time.

Section 00*=+ o! the 0115 $ax Code states the time re:uirements !or 8ling a >udicialclaim !or the re!und or tax credit o! input 9A$. $he legal pro(ision speaudicial claim with the C$A. It is the 6/,day period that is atissue in this case.

@n 00 =ecemer ///" petitioner 8led with the &IR an application !or the re!und or credito! accumulated unutilized creditale input taxes. $hus" the CIR had a period o! 0/ days!rom 00 =ecemer ///" or until 0/ April //0" to act on the claim. It !ailed to do so"howe(er. Rohm Apollo should then ha(e treated the CIR#s inaction as a denial o! its claim.Petitioner would then ha(e had 6/ days" or until 0/ 'ay //0" to 8le a >udicial claim withthe C$A. &ut Rohm Apollo 8led a Petition !or Re(iew with the C$A only on 00 Septemer//. $he >udicial claim was thus 8led late.

The 30-day period to appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.

As a general rule" the 6/,day period to appeal is oth mandatory and >urisdictional. $heonly exception to the general rule is when &IR Ruling ?o. =A,421,/6 was still in !orce" thatis" etween 0/ =ecemer //6 and 3 @ctoer /0/" $he &IR Ruling excused premature8ling" declaring that the taxpayer,claimant need not wait !or the lapse o! the 0/,dayperiod e!ore it could see< >udicial relie! with the C$A y way o! Petition !or Re(iew.In San Roque,the Figh Court explained oth the general rule and theexceptionDchanroles(irtuallawlirary


3/3

$o repeat" a claim !or tax re!und or credit" liudicial claim.5chanRoles(irtual-awliraryIn sum" premature 8ling is allowed !or cases !alling during the time when &IR Ruling ?o.=A,421,/6 was in !orce ne(ertheless" late 8ling is asolutely prohiited e(en !or cases!alling within that period.

As mentioned ao(e" the taxpayer 8led its >udicial claim with the C$A on 00 Septemer//. $his was )o#) /) *ss"!)o! &IR Ruling ?o. =A,421,/6 on 0/ =ecemer //6.

$hus" Rohm Apollo could not ha(e ene8ted !rom the &IR Ruling. &esides" its situation

was not a case o! premature 8ling o! its >udicial claim ut one o! late 8ling. $o repeat" its>udicial claim was 8led on 00 Septemer // % long a!ter 0/ 'ay //0" the last day o!the 6/,day period !or appeal. $he case thus !alls under the general rule % the 6/,dayperiod is mandatory and >urisdictional.cralawred

In 8ne" our 8nding is that the >udicial claim !or the re!und or credit o! unutilized input 9A$was elatedly 8led. Fence" the C$A lost >urisdiction o(er Rohm Apollo#s claim !or a re!undor credit.

A 8nal note" the taxpayers are reminded that that when the 0/,day period lapses andthere is inaction on the part o! the CIR" they must no longer wait !or it to come up with adecision therea!ter. $he CIR#s inaction is the decision itsel!. It is already a denial o! the

re!und claim. $hus" the taxpayer must 8le an appeal within 6/ days !rom the lapse o! the0/,day waiting period.chanroles law

apollo semiconductor philippines vs commissioner january 14, 2015 gr no. 168950

Documents