Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84192:59616&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:04:08+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 203774, March 11, 2015 - CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Dissatisfied, CIR respectively moved for reconsideration,19 and for the dismissal of Cargill’s petitions,claiming that they were prematurely filed due to its failure to exhaust administrative remedies.20 Cargill likewise sought for reconsideration,21 maintaining that the CTA Division erred in disallowing the rest of its refund claims.
Aggrieved, Cargill elevated its case to the CTA En Banc.
In this case, records disclose that anent Cargill’s first refund claim, it filed its administrative claim with the BIR on June 27, 2003, and its judicial claim before the CTA on June 30, 2003, or before the period when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in effect, i.e., from December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010. As such, it was incumbent upon Cargill to wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before seeking relief with the CTA, and considering that its judicial claim was filed only after three (3) days later, the CTA En Banc, thus, correctly dismissed Cargill’s petition in CTA Case No. 6714for being prematurely filed.
In contrast, records show that with respect to Cargill’s second refund claim, its administrative and judicial claims were both filed on May 31, 2005, or during the period of effectivity of BIR Ruling NO. DA-489-03, and, thus, fell within the exemption window period contemplated in San Roque, i.e., when taxpayer-claimants need not wait for the expiration of the 120-day period before seeking judicial relief. Verily, the CTA En Banc erred when it outrightly dismissed CTA Case No. 7262on the ground of prematurity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 18, 2012 and the Resolution dated September 27, 2012 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA EB Case No. 779 are hereby AFFIRMED only insofar as it dismissed CTA Case No. 6714. On the other hand, CTA Case No. 7262 is REINSTATED and REMANDED to the CTA Special First Division for its resolution on the merits.
2 Id. at 82-106. Penned by Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla with Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Olga Palanca-Enriquez, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas concurring; Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista dissenting.
8 See id. at 87.
9 See id. at 89.
10 See id. at 87-89.
11 Not attached to the rollo.
14 Id. at 124-165. Penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova with Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista concurring and Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta concurring and dissenting.
16 See id. at 137-138.
17 586 Phil. 712 (2008).
18 See rollo, pp. 160-164.
21 See motion for reconsideration dated September 13, 2010; id. at 171-189.
23 See id. at 116-119 and 121.
24 G.R. No. 184823, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 422.
25 See id. at 442-444. See also rollo, p. 119.
26 See rollo, pp. 119-121.
28 See id. at 101-105.
29 Not attached to the rollo.
31 Entitled “ADOPTING A VALUE-ADDED TAX, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” (Effective January 1, 1988).
32 Entitled “AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM, WIDENING ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR THESE PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” (Approved May 5, 1994).
33 Entitled “AN ACT AMENDING THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” (Effective January 1, 1998).
35 See Republic v. GST Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 190872, October 17, 2013, 707 SCRA 695, 700-703.
36 See CIR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc., supra note 24, at 435-444.
37 See Taganito Mining Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. 197591, June 18, 2014.
38 G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 336.
40CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, supra note 38, at 401.
43 See Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. 159471, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 504, 514-515, citing Atlas Consolidated Mining and Dev’t. Corp. v. CIR, 551 Phil. 519, 558-560 (2007).
44 In said case, an amended decision was likewise issued by the CTA Special First Division dismissing Panay Power Corporation’s (PPC) claim for refund for being prematurely filed. Considering, however, that PPC filed its administrative and judicial claim during the effectivity of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, i.e., the exemption window period, the Court, thus, ordered the remand of the case to the CTA Special First Division to determine PPC’s entitlement, if any, to a tax refund since this matter involves questions of fact. (See G.R. No. 203351, January 21, 2015).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.