COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The core issue involves whether administrative and judicial claims for a refund of overpaid income taxes must be filed simultaneously or successively. The respondent, Carrier Air Conditioning Philippines, Inc., filed its administrative claim for a tax refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on November 29, 2011. It subsequently filed its judicial claim with the Court of Tax Appeals ten (10) days later, on December 9, 2011. Both claims were filed within the two-year prescriptive period from the tax payment, as required by the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
ISSUE
Whether the filing of a judicial claim for a tax refund ten (10) days after the administrative claim, both within the two-year prescriptive period, complies with the statutory requirements under Sections 204 and 229 of the NIRC, particularly regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
RULING
The Concurring Opinion, citing the doctrine established in CBK Power Company Limited v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, rules that the filing is compliant and the petition should be denied. Section 229 of the NIRC is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity: it only requires that an administrative claim be filed prior to a judicial claim, with both filed within the two-year prescriptive period. The law does not require the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to first act on the claim, nor does it mandate a specific “reasonable period” to lapse between the administrative and judicial filings. The administrative claim serves as a notice that court action will follow if the refund is not granted. Applying the verba legis doctrine, the Court must apply the law exactly as worded and cannot read into it a requirement for a mandatory waiting period. Therefore, the respondent’s successive filing of claims within the two-year period validly exhausted administrative remedies.
