Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Dohle Shipmanagement Phils. Corp. v. CIR, CTA EB No. 1715 Dated March 14, 2019

    Uploaded by

    rudilyn.palero9
    The petitioner filed applications for refund of excess input VAT for 2010 with the respondent. The respondent denied the claim, arguing it was filed outside the 120-day period required by law. The petitioner argued the 120-day period was suspended when it was asked to submit additional documents. However, the court ruled the petition was filed out of time. While the 120-day period can be suspended if the revenue examiners request additional documents within two years, in this case the petitioner did not submit the additional documents until over two years later, in response to the denial rather than in support of the original claim. Therefore, the court found the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory filing periods of Section 112 of the Tax Code.

    Copyright:

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

    Dohle Shipmanagement Phils. Corp. v. CIR, CTA EB No. 1715 Dated March 14, 2019

    Uploaded by

    rudilyn.palero9
    15 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed applications for refund of excess input VAT for 2010 with the respondent. The respondent denied the claim, arguing it was filed outside the 120-day period required by law. The petitioner argued the 120-day period was suspended when it was asked to submit additional documents. However, the court ruled the petition was filed out of time. While the 120-day period can be suspended if the revenue examiners request additional documents within two years, in this case the petitioner did not submit the additional documents until over two years later, in response to the denial rather than in support of the original claim. Therefore, the court found the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory filing periods of Section 112 of the Tax Code.

    Original Title

    40. Dohle Shipmanagement Phils. Corp. v. CIR, CTA EB No. 1715 dated March 14, 2019

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed applications for refund of excess input VAT for 2010 with the respondent. The respondent denied the claim, arguing it was filed outside the 120-day period required by law. The petitioner argued the 120-day period was suspended when it was asked to submit additional documents. However, the court ruled the petition was filed out of time. While the 120-day period can be suspended if the revenue examiners request additional documents within two years, in this case the petitioner did not submit the additional documents until over two years later, in response to the denial rather than in support of the original claim. Therefore, the court found the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory filing periods of Section 112 of the Tax Code.

    Copyright:

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

    Dohle Shipmanagement Phils. Corp. v. CIR, CTA EB No. 1715 Dated March 14, 2019

    Uploaded by

    rudilyn.palero9
    The petitioner filed applications for refund of excess input VAT for 2010 with the respondent. The respondent denied the claim, arguing it was filed outside the 120-day period required by law. The petitioner argued the 120-day period was suspended when it was asked to submit additional documents. However, the court ruled the petition was filed out of time. While the 120-day period can be suspended if the revenue examiners request additional documents within two years, in this case the petitioner did not submit the additional documents until over two years later, in response to the denial rather than in support of the original claim. Therefore, the court found the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory filing periods of Section 112 of the Tax Code.

    Copyright:

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

    Dohle Shipmanagement Phils. Corp. v. CIR, CTA EB No.

    1715 dated March 14,


    2019
    FACTS:
    Petitioner filed with respondent OSS-DOF applications for refund/tax credits of its
    unapplied input VAT for the four quarters of the year 2010. The petitioner still demands
    to substantiate its administrative claim of tax credit/refund even until 2013. The
    respondent, on the other hand, claims his usual defense that the instant claim for refund
    is still subject to examination. In addition, he states that petitioner needs to prove the
    merits of its claim since claims for refund are strictly construed against the claimants,
    and that the court has no jurisdiction over the case as it was filed out of time. It failed to
    comply with the mandatory 120-day period under Section 112 of the NIRC as amended.
    The said prescriptive period was yet to lapse when the present appeal was instituted
    rendering it premature, the 120-day prescriptive period stopped running from the time
    petitioner was required to submit the Agreement Form. Despite receipt of the letter
    dated March 13, 2013, petitioner failed to submit the required Agreement Form which
    effectively suspended the running of the 120-day period.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess input VAT for taxable year
    2010.
    RULING:
    No, the petition was filed out of time. Section 112(A) and (C) of the 1997 NIRC, as
    amended, governs the filing of administrative and judicial claims for refund or tax credit
    of excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated
    sales. The controversy arose from the interpretation of the provisions of the aforequoted
    Section 112 (C) of the 1997, as amended, relative to the submission of the complete
    documents to support the administrative claims for refund and the subsequent appeal to
    this Court within the 120+30-day period.
    In petitioner's Reply to the Answer filed on December 16, 2013, the submission of the
    documents on April 12, 2013 was in response to the OSS-DOF's letter dated March
    13,2013 partially denying its applications for tax refund. This partial denial prompted
    petitioner to file a letter to the OSS-DOF requesting for reconsideration of the partial
    denial of its claim where it attached several documents in support of the letter request
    for reconsideration.
    From the statements of petitioner in the aforequoted letter, the submission of the
    additional documents by petitioner was not in support of the original administrative
    claims for refund filed collectively on August 12, 20 11 but was in response to the partial
    denial of its claim for refund after review and evaluation by the OSS-DOF embodied in a
    letter dated March 13, 2013. 7 From the date of filing of the applications for refund on
    August 12, 20118 , petitioner submitted the additional documents only on March 13,
    2013 which is outside the two year period for all the four taxable quarters of 20 10 and
    only in response to the partial denial of the claim for refund which was incidentally
    contained in a letter signed by the Head of the Tax and Revenue Group, OSS-DOF, Ms.
    Nelia A. Castillo dated March 13, 2013.9 Note that Section 112 (C) requires the
    submission of the documents in support of the original claim or applications for refund
    mentioned in Section 112 (A) and not as a response to subsequent events, e.g., a
    denial of the claim in the administrative level.
    The Court would like to emphasize that it is not upon the lapse of the two-year period
    from the end of the taxable quarter that the 120-day period commences to run but from
    the date of the submission of documents by petitioner in support of its claim for refund.
    As mentioned earlier, there are exceptional circumstances where the submission
    extends beyond the two-year period due to the constant and ongoing requests of the
    revenue examiners but without this exception, it is presumed that the taxpayer has
    completed the submission of documents at the time of the filing of the administrative
    claim similar to the instant case.

    You might also like