Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    Sitel Philippines Corporation V. Cir FEB 8, 2017 - GR NO. 201326 Topic

    Uploaded by

    Paula Marquez Mendita
    Sitel Philippines Corporation v. CIR involved Sitel filing claims for VAT refund totaling over 23 million pesos with the DOF and CTA. The CTA Division partially granted the claim but denied portions for failing to prove zero-rated sales or meet invoicing requirements. The CTA En Banc set aside this ruling, finding that Sitel prematurely filed the judicial claim before the mandatory 120-day period for the CIR to act on the administrative refund claim had lapsed, so the CTA did not have jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sitel Philippines Corporation V. Cir FEB 8, 2017 - GR NO. 201326 Topic

    Uploaded by

    Paula Marquez Mendita
    105 views2 pages
    Sitel Philippines Corporation v. CIR involved Sitel filing claims for VAT refund totaling over 23 million pesos with the DOF and CTA. The CTA Division partially granted the claim but denied portions for failing to prove zero-rated sales or meet invoicing requirements. The CTA En Banc set aside this ruling, finding that Sitel prematurely filed the judicial claim before the mandatory 120-day period for the CIR to act on the administrative refund claim had lapsed, so the CTA did not have jurisdiction.

    Original Title

    39_SITEL V CIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sitel Philippines Corporation v. CIR involved Sitel filing claims for VAT refund totaling over 23 million pesos with the DOF and CTA. The CTA Division partially granted the claim but denied portions for failing to prove zero-rated sales or meet invoicing requirements. The CTA En Banc set aside this ruling, finding that Sitel prematurely filed the judicial claim before the mandatory 120-day period for the CIR to act on the administrative refund claim had lapsed, so the CTA did not have jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    105 views2 pages

    Sitel Philippines Corporation V. Cir FEB 8, 2017 - GR NO. 201326 Topic

    Uploaded by

    Paula Marquez Mendita
    Sitel Philippines Corporation v. CIR involved Sitel filing claims for VAT refund totaling over 23 million pesos with the DOF and CTA. The CTA Division partially granted the claim but denied portions for failing to prove zero-rated sales or meet invoicing requirements. The CTA En Banc set aside this ruling, finding that Sitel prematurely filed the judicial claim before the mandatory 120-day period for the CIR to act on the administrative refund claim had lapsed, so the CTA did not have jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SITEL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION V.

    CIR
    FEB 8, 2017 | GR NO. 201326

    TOPIC: 120+30 days periods for refund claim.

    FACTS:
    1. Sitel is a Philippine corporation engaged in the business of providing call center services
    from the Philippines to domestic and offshore businesses. It is registered with the Bureau
    of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a VAT taxpayer.

    2. On March 28, 2006, Sitel filed separate formal claims for refund or issuance of tax credit
    with the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the
    Department of Finance (DOF) for its unutilized input VAT arising from domestic
    purchases of goods and services attributed to zero-rated transactions and
    purchases/importations of capital goods for for the first to fourth quarters of taxable year
    2004 in the aggregate amount of P23,093,899.59.

    3. On March 30, 2006, Sitel filed a judicial claim for refund or tax credit via a petition for
    review before the CTA.

    CTA DIVISION DECISION

    The CTA Division rendered a Decision partially granting Sitel's claim for VAT
    refund/tax credit in the reduced amount of P11,155,276.59.

    The CTA Division denied Sitel's P7,170,276.02 claim for unutilized input VAT
    attributable to its zero-rated sales. Based on CIR vs. Burmeister, the CTA Division found that
    Sitel failed to prove that the recipients of its services are doing business outside the Philippines,
    as required under Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC.

    The CTA Division also also disallowed the amount of P2,668,852.55 for failure to
    comply with the invoicing requirements under Sections 113, 237, and 238 of the NIRC. These
    are supported by invoices and official receipts with pre-printed TIN-V instead of TIN-VAT, as
    required under Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95.

    CTA EN BANC DECISION

    The CTA En Banc set aside the ruling of the CTA Division. Citing CIR vs. Aichi
    Forging, the CTA En Banc ruled that the 120-day period for the CIR to act on the administrative
    claim for refund or tax credit, under Section 112(D) of the NIRC, is mandatory and
    jurisdictional. Considering that Sitel filed its judicial claim for VAT refund or credit without
    waiting for the lapse of the 120-day period for the CIR to act on its administrative claim, the
    CTA did not acquire jurisdiction as there was no decision or inaction to speak of. Thus, the CTA
    En Banc denied Sitel's entire refund claim on the ground of prematurity.

    You might also like