Rohm Apollo vs. CIR
Rohm Apollo vs. CIR
*
ROHM APOLLO SEMICONDUCTOR PHILIPPINES,
petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, respondent.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
664
SERENO, CJ.:
This Rule 45 Petition1 requires this Court to address the
question of timeliness with respect to petitioner’s judicial
claim for refund or credit of unutilized input Value-Added
Tax
_______________
665
_______________
2 The Section is numbered 112(D) under R.A. 8424, but R.A. 9337
renumbered the Section to 112(C).
3 Rollo, pp. 252-258; CTA En Banc Decision dated 22 June 2005,
penned by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, and concurred in by
Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista, Caesar A. Casanova, Juanito C.
Castañeda, Jr., Olga Palanca-Enriquez, and Erlinda P. Uy.
4 Id., at pp. 274-275; CTA Resolution dated 28 July 2005.
5 Id., at pp. 117-129; dated 27 May 2004, penned by Associate Justice
Lovell R. Bautista, and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ernesto D.
Acosta and Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda.
6 Id., at p. 252.
7 Under the provisions of R.A. 7916.
8 Rollo, p. 253.
9 Id., at p. 252.
666
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue
_______________
10 Id., at p. 253.
11 Id.
12 (B) Capital Goods.—A VAT-registered person may apply for the
issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of input taxes paid on capital
goods imported or locally purchased, to the extent that such input taxes
have not been applied against output taxes. The application may be made
only within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter
when the importation or purchase was made. (Emphases supplied)
13 Section 112(A) states:
SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax.—
(A) Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales.—Any VAT-registered
person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within
two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales
were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of
creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except
transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been
applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-
rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (B) and Section 108(B)(1)
and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had
been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the
taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in
taxable or exempt sale of goods of properties or services, and the amount
of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely
attributed to any one of the transac-
667
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015 667
Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue
_______________
668
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue
_______________
16 Rollo, p. 253.
17 Id.
18 Id., at p. 254.
19 Id., at p. 252.
20 Id.
669
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015 669
Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue
Issue
The threshold question to be resolved is whether the
CTA acquired jurisdiction over the claim for the refund or
tax credit of unutilized input VAT.
The Court’s Ruling
We deny the Petition on the ground that the taxpayer’s
judicial claim for a refund/tax credit was filed beyond the
prescriptive period.
The judicial claim
was filed out of time.
Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code states the time
requirements for filing a judicial claim for the refund or tax
credit of input VAT. The legal provision speaks of two
periods: the period of 120 days, which serves as a waiting
period to give time for the CIR to act on the administrative
claim for a refund or credit; and the period of 30 days,
which refers to the period for filing a judicial claim with the
CTA. It is the 30-day period that is at issue in this case.
The landmark case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v. San Roque Power Corporation21 has interpreted Section
112(D). The Court held that the taxpayer can file an appeal
in one of two ways: (1) file the judicial claim within 30 days
after the Commissioner denies the claim within the 120-
day waiting period, or (2) file the judicial claim within 30
days from the expiration of the 120-day period if the
Commissioner does not act within that period.
In this case, the facts are not up for debate. On 11
December 2000, petitioner filed with the BIR an
application for the refund or credit of accumulated
unutilized creditable input
_______________
670
_______________
671
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015 671
Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue
The old rule that the taxpayer may file the judicial claim,
without waiting for the Commissioner’s decision if the two-year
prescriptive period is about to expire, cannot apply because that
rule was adopted before the enactment of the 30-day period. The
30-day period was adopted precisely to do away with the old rule,
so that under the VAT System the taxpayer will always have 30
days to file the judicial claim even if the Commissioner acts
only on the 120th day, or does not act at all during the 120-
day period. With the 30-day period always available to the
taxpayer, the taxpayer can no longer file a judicial claim for
refund or credit of input VAT without waiting for the
Commissioner to decide until the expiration of the 120-day
period.25 (Emphases supplied)
The 30-day period to appeal
is mandatory and jurisdictional.
As a general rule, the 30-day period to appeal is both
mandatory and jurisdictional. The only exception to the
general rule is when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was still in
force, that is, between 10 December 2003 and 5 October
2010, The BIR Ruling excused premature filing, declaring
that the taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of
the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with
the CTA by way of Petition for Review. In San Roque, the
High Court explained both the general rule and the
exception:
To repeat, a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim
for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the
taxpayer. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of
refund or credit under the VAT System is with the 120+30
day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict
_______________
25 Id.
672
San Roque likewise ruled out the application of the BIR
ruling to cases of late filing. The Court held that the BIR
ruling, as an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional
nature of the 120+30 day periods, is limited to premature
filing and does not extend to the late filing of a judicial
claim.27
In sum, premature filing is allowed for cases falling
during the time when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in
force; nevertheless, late filing is absolutely prohibited even
for cases falling within that period.
As mentioned above, the taxpayer filed its judicial claim
with the CTA on 11 September 2002. This was before the
issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December
2003. Thus, Rohm Apollo could not have benefited from the
BIR Ruling. Besides, its situation was not a case of
premature filing of its judicial claim but one of late filing.
To repeat, its judicial claim was filed on 11 September 2002
— long after 10 May 2001, the last day of the 30-day period
for appeal. The case thus falls under the general rule — the
30-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional.
Conclusion
In fine, our finding is that the judicial claim for the
refund or credit of unutilized input VAT was belatedly
filed. Hence,
_______________
673
Petition denied.