GR 185666; (February, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185666, February 4, 2015
NIPPON EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Nippon Express (Philippines) Corp., a VAT-registered freight forwarding service company, filed four separate applications for tax credit/refund with the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance (OSSAC-DOF) on September 24, 2001. The claim was for an alleged accumulated excess or unutilized input VAT amounting to ₱24,826,667.61 attributable to its zero-rated sales for the calendar year 2000. Having received no resolution from OSSAC-DOF, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on April 24, 2002. The CTA First Division denied the claim, ruling that the sales invoices, transfer slips, and credit memos presented to prove its zero-rated sales did not comply with substantiation requirements, as sales of services should only be supported by official receipts. The CTA En Banc affirmed this decision. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing, among others, that the law does not state that only official receipts support the sale of services and that other documentary evidence should be allowed.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a Tax Credit Certificate (TCC) in the amount of ₱24,826,667.61 representing its excess and unutilized input VAT for the taxable year 2000.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that petitioner’s judicial claim was filed prematurely and was therefore barred by prescription. Applying the doctrine established in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, the Court ruled that the 120-day period for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on an administrative claim for refund is mandatory and jurisdictional. Petitioner filed its administrative claim on September 24, 2001, and thus had to wait for the expiration of the 120-day period or for a denial by the Commissioner before it could file a judicial claim with the CTA. The 120-day period expired on January 22, 2002. However, petitioner filed its judicial claim on April 24, 2002, which was beyond the 30-day period after the expiration of the 120 days. Consequently, the judicial claim was filed out of time. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the substantive issue regarding compliance with substantiation requirements, as the claim was already barred by prescription.