CIR vs Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership its administrative claim was not acted upon by CIR.
Here,
Case Digest GR 191498 Jan 15 2014 Mindanao II filed its application for refund on Oct 6 2005.
When it was not acted upon, it filed a judicial claim but only on
Facts: July 21 2006, or 138 days after the lapse of the 30-day period
Mindanao II is a registered taxpayer whose sales to on 5 March 2006. Its petition for review before the CTA was
NAPOCOR are all zero-rated pursuant to the EPIRA Law. On therefore filed late.
Oct 6 2005, it filed with the BIR an application for the refund Contrary to the erroneous contentions of the CTA En Banc, the
or credit of accumulated unutilized creditable input taxes for correct interpretation of Section 112, as held in San Roque, is
the second, third, and fourth taxable quarters of the taxable that the 30-day period applies not only to instances of actual
year 2004. The administrative claim was not acted upon until denial by the CIR of the claim for refund or tax credit, but to
Feb 3 2006, or 120 days after Oct 6 2005. Believing that a cases of inaction by the CIR as well. Also, following the verba
judicial claim must be filed within the 2-year prescriptive period legis doctrine, the 30-day period to appeal is both mandatory
provided under Sec 112 (A) and that it must be reckoned from and jurisdictional. Section 112 (C) is clear, plain and
the date of filing of its VAT returns, Mindanao filed on July 26 unequivocal in expressly providing that the taxpayer has a 30-
2006 a petition for review before the CTA claiming inaction on day period to appeal the decision or inaction of the
the part of the CIR. Commissioner. ##
On Aug 12 2008, the CTA Division granted Mindanao ***When reading the full text of this case, please note the
II’s claim for refund/credit and held that its judicial claim was difference in letterings of Section 112 particularly Section 112
timely filed within the 2-year prescriptive period. The CIR (C) and (D) of the NIRC as amended by RA 9337 of 2005. In this
opposed the rulings claiming that prescription had already set digested version, Section 112 (C) is used to refer to Section 112
in when Mindanao II filed its judicial claim beyond the 30-day (D) of the old NIRC. ***
period fixed in Section 112 (C). Summary of Rules on Prescriptive Periods for Claiming
CTA En Banc's Contentions Refund or Credit of Input Tax
Two-Year Prescriptive Period
Issue 1: W/N Mindanao II’s administrative claim for 1. It is only the administrative claim that must be filed
refund/credit was timely filed within the two-year prescriptive period. (Aichi)
2. The proper reckoning date for the two-year
Yes. Pursuant to Section 112 (A) of the 1997 Tax Code, it is only prescriptive period is the close of the taxable quarter
the administrative claim which is to be filed within the two- when the relevant sales were made. (San Roque)
year prescriptive period, and the two-year prescriptive period 3. The only other rule is the Atlas ruling, which applied
begins to run from the close of the taxable quarter when the only from 8 June 2007 to12 September 2008. Atlas
sales were made. Here, Mindanao II filed its claim for states that the two-year prescriptive period for filing
refund/credit for the second, third, and fourth quarters of a claim for tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT
2004 on Oct 6 2005. Such date is well within the two-year payments should be counted from the date of filing of
prescriptive period which runs from June 30 2004 (2nd the VAT return and payment of the tax. (San Roque)
Quarter), Sept 30 2004 (3rd Quarter) and Dec 31 2004 (4th 120 + 30 Day Period
Quarter). 1. The taxpayer can file an appeal in one of two ways:
[The Atlas and Mirant rulings are simply not applicable in this (1) file the judicial claim within thirty days after the
case because Mindanao II’s application for refund/credit on Commissioner denies the claim within the 120-day period, or
Oct 6 2005 was filed before their promulgation. The Atlas ruling (2) file the judicial claim within thirty days from the expiration
is held to be applicable only on cases filed from June 8 2007, of the 120-day period if the Commissioner does not act within
the date of its promulgation, and up to Sept 12 2008, the date the 120-day period.
when the Mirant case was promulgated. 2. The 30-day period always applies, whether there is a
In Atlas, the court laid down a rule that the 2-year prescriptive denial or inaction on the part of the CIR.
period is reckoned from the date of filing of the return and 3. As a general rule, the 30-day period to appeal is both
payment of taxes. In Mirant, such rule was abandoned. mandatory and jurisdictional. (Aichi and San Roque)
Following the verba legis doctrine, Mirant held that in 4. As an exception to the general rule, premature filing
administrative claims for refund/credit of unutilized input VAT, is allowed only if filed between 10 December 2003
the 2-year prescriptive period begins to run from the close of and 5 October 2010, when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03
taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made. This rule, was still in force. (San Roque)
which is obviously consistent with the plain wordings of Section 5. Late filing is absolutely prohibited, even during the
112 (A), was also affirmed in the recent case of San Roque.] time when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in force.
(San Roque)
Issue 2: W/N Mindanao II’s judicial claim for refund/credit
was timely filed
No. Under Section 112 (C), the judicial claim must be filed by
the taxpayer within 30 days after the 120-day waiting period if
