Taganito Mining v.

CIR
GR No. 198076 / 19 Nov 2014 / J. Perlas-Bernabe
FACTS
Taganito filed an administrative claim for refund of input VAT in the amount of

1.9 million on 28 Dec 2005 covering taxable year 2004.

Fearing that the period for judicial claim for refund was about to expire, it

filed a petition for review before the CTA division on 31 Mar 2006 for the same
amount.
CTA division partially granted the refund, only to the amount of 538k. It

mainly found that since the Board of Investments (BOI) issued a certification in
its favor, for the period 10 Mar 2004 to 31 Dec 2004, Taganito's local suppliers
may avail of a zero-percent rating and thus no output VAT may be shifted from
the former to the latter (?)
On the procedural aspects, CTA division found that the refund claims were

filed within the 2 year period and the 120 day period.
CTA en banc reversed the CTA division, ruling that the judicial claim for refund

was prematurely filed. It was only filed a mere 93 days after the administrative
claim on 28 Dec 2005. It applied the CIR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia
ruling in that the 120-day period provided under Sec. 112(D) of the NIRC is
mandatory and jurisdictional.
ISSUE / HELD
W/N the judicial claim was premature. NO

RATIO
This case has almost the same ratio as Visayas Geothermal Power. Applying

the rule in CIR v. San Roque Power Corp, the SC ruled that because of the
existing BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated 10 Dec 2003, wherein the BIR stated
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",
the correct Aichi ruling that the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional
need not be observed for judicial claims of excess input VAT from 10 Dec 2003
to 6 Oct 2010. The claim in this case falls within that period.
SC also clarified two exceptions to the 120-day mandatory and jurisdictional

period. (maybe obiter)

a.
When the Commissioner through a specific ruling, misleads a
particular taxpayer to prematurely file a judicial claim with the CTA. Such
specific ruling is applicable only to such particular taxpayer.
b.
The San Roque exception - where the CIR through a general
interpretive rule under Sec. 4 of the Tax Code misleads all taxpayers into
filing prematurely judicial claims with the CTA. In these cases, the CIR
cannot be allowed to question later on the CTA's assumption of jurisdiction
because of equitable estoppel under Sec. 246.