Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Carpio, J:
HELD:
FACTS:
YES. It was premature.
On October 11, 1997, [San Roque] entered into a Power Purchase
Agreement ("PPA") with the National Power Corporation ("NPC") to
develop hydro-potential of the Lower Agno River and generate
additional power and energy for the Luzon Power Grid, by building
the San Roque Multi-Purpose Project located in San Manuel,
Pangasinan. The PPA provides, among others, that [San Roque]
shall be responsible for the design, construction, installation,
completion, testing and commissioning of the Power Station and
shall operate and maintain the same, subject to NPC instructions.
During the cooperation period of twenty-five (25) years
commencing from the completion date of the Power Station, NPC
will take and pay for all electricity available from the Power Station.
[San Roque] allegedly incurred, excess input VAT in the amount of
559,709,337.54 for taxable year 2001 which it declared in its
Quarterly VAT Returns filed for the same year. [San Roque] duly
filed with the BIR separate claims for refund, in the total amount of
559,709,337.54, representing unutilized input taxes as declared
in its VAT returns for taxable year 2001.
On March 28, 2003, [San Roque] filed amended Quarterly VAT
Returns for the year 2001 since it increased its unutilized input VAT
to the amount of 560,200,283.14. Consequently, [San Roque]
filed with the BIR on even date, separate amended claims for
refund.
[CIRs] inaction on the subject claims led to the filing by [San
Roque] of the Petition for Review with the Court [of Tax Appeals] in
Division on April 10, 2003.
CTA in division and CTA En banc gave due course to the claim of
San Roque.
ISSUE:
Whether or not San Roques claim for refund was prematurely filed.
Roque filed a Petition for Review with the CTA docketed as CTA
Case No. 6647. From this we gather two crucial facts: first, San
Roque did not wait for the 120-day period to lapse before filing its
judicial claim; second, San Roque filed its judicial claim more than
four (4) years before the Atlas45 doctrine, which was promulgated
by the Court on 8 June 2007.
Clearly, San Roque failed to comply with the 120-day waiting
period, the time expressly given by law to the Commissioner to
decide whether to grant or deny San Roques application for tax
refund or credit. It is indisputable that compliance with the 120-day
waiting period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The waiting
period, originally fixed at 60 days only, was part of the provisions
of the first VAT law, Executive Order No. 273, which took effect on 1
January 1988. The waiting period was extended to 120 days
effective 1 January 1998 under RA 8424 or the Tax Reform Act of
1997. Thus, the waiting period has been in our statute
books for more than fifteen (15) years before San Roque
filed its judicial claim.
Failure to comply with the 120-day waiting period violates a
mandatory provision of law. It violates the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and renders the petition premature and
thus without a cause of action, with the effect that the CTA does
not acquire jurisdiction over the taxpayers petition. Philippine
jurisprudence is replete with cases upholding and reiterating these
doctrinal principles.
San Roques failure to comply with the 120-day mandatory period
renders its petition for review with the CTA void. Article 5 of the