G.R. No. 185115 , February 18, 2015.
NORTHERN MINDANAO POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Northern Mindanao Power Corporation, an independent power producer selling electricity to the National Power Corporation (NPC), filed administrative claims for refund of input Value-Added Tax (VAT) allegedly incurred on domestic purchases for its zero-rated sales. The claims were for ₱2,490,960.29 for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1999 (filed June 20, 2000) and ₱3,920,932.55 for all quarters of 2000 (filed July 25, 2001). Alleging inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), petitioner filed a judicial petition with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on September 28, 2001. The CTA First Division denied the claim, finding petitioner failed to imprint the term “zero-rated” on its receipts/invoices as required by Revenue Regulations. The CTA En Banc affirmed, ruling that official receipts (for services) and sales invoices (for goods) are not interchangeable and the “zero-rated” imprint is mandatory for refund claims. Petitioner appealed, arguing the imprint requirement is unconstitutional and that its company invoices are sufficient to substantiate the claim.

ISSUE

Whether the CTA acquired jurisdiction over petitioner’s judicial claims for refund, considering the timeliness of filing in relation to the prescriptive periods under Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court, motu proprio, examined the jurisdictional issue of timeliness. Applying the doctrine in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, the Court held that a judicial claim must strictly adhere to the “120+30 day” period: the taxpayer must wait 120 days for the CIR to act on the administrative claim, and if denied or inaction persists, must file the judicial claim within 30 days thereafter.
1. For the 1999 Claims (3rd & 4th quarters): The administrative claim was filed on June 20, 2000. The 120-day period for CIR action ended on October 18, 2000, and the subsequent 30-day period to file judicially ended on November 17, 2000. Petitioner filed its judicial claim on September 28, 2001, which was 319 days late. This constituted late filing, and petitioner lost its right to claim the refund.
2. For the 2000 Claims (all quarters): The administrative claim was filed on July 25, 2001. The 120-day period for CIR action would end on November 22, 2001. Petitioner filed its judicial claim on September 28, 2001, after only 64 days, which was premature. Failure to observe the mandatory 120-day waiting period is fatal and deprives the CTA of jurisdiction. The exception under BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 (allowing premature filing from December 10, 2003, to October 6, 2010) did not apply, as the filing date (September 28, 2001) was outside this period.
Given the dispositive jurisdictional grounds, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to rule on the substantive issues regarding the “zero-rated” imprint requirement and the sufficiency of invoices. The petition was denied for late and premature filing of the judicial claims, respectively.