Professional Documents
Culture Documents
...J
FIRSTDIVIS/OK
THIRD MILLENIUM OIL MILL, C.T.A. CASE NO. 7583
INC.,
Petitioner, Members:
A COST A, P.J.
-versus- UY, and
FABON-VICTORINO, JJ.
AMENDED DECISION
UY,~.:
SO ORDERED."
Respondent argues that this Court erred in holding that the judicial claim for
refund filed by petitioner was made within the prescriptive period. Thus, he subm~
94 8
AMENDED DECISION
C.T.A. Case No . 7583
Page 2 of q
that this Court was without jurisdiction to hear and resolve the instant petition, the
action having been prescribed upon its filing with this Court.
112(A) and (D) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997.
The rule is that in order to ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the
enumerates over which cases this Court has appellate jurisdiction. In part, it
provides:
Furthermore, Section 11 prescribes how the said appeal should be taken, viz:
receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed
by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein .
NIRC of 1997-the provision to which petitioner anchors the instant claim for the
i.e., a period of 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents for the
tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes due or paid attributable to zero-rated or
"(D) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be
Made.- In proper cases , the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue
the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents
in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and
(B) hereof.
"In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or
the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application
within the period prescribed above , the taxpayer affected may, within
thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after t~
93 0
AME NDED DECISION
C.T.A. Case No. 7583
Page 4 of 3
Based on the foregoing , before going to this Court, the concerned VAT-
registered person must file an administrative claim for the refund or issuance of tax
within two years reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the said sales
were made.
For this Court to have appellate jurisdiction over the case , the VAT-registered
person , who timely filed the said administrative claim , must await the decision or
ruling of denial of such claim , whether full or partial , or the expiration of the 120-day
period from the submission of complete documents in support of such claim , and
then file before this Court a petition for review within 30 days from receipt of the said
decision or ruling , or from the expiration of the said 120-day period , as the case may
be. As for the latter case , the expiration of such period is necessary since it is only
The filing of the petition for review within the thirty-day period should be
strictly observed , since it is beyond the power of the courts to extend the period for
before this Court under Section 112(0) of the NIRC of 1997 and Section 11 (first
term "may" instead of the mandatory word "shall ". . While the ordinary acceptations of
4
Section 7(a)(2), RA 11 25, as amended by RA 9282.
5
Chan Kian vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et a/. , G. R. No. L-1 2 184, May 29, 1959
6
Antique Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco, et a/. , G. R. No. L-2005 1, May 30, 1966, citing Manila Electric Co. vs. _ /
Public Service Commission, 6 1 Phil. 456. (0
(I ... ,
J J..;_
AME NDED DEC ISIO N
C.T.A . Case No. 7583
Page 5 of 'j
and inflexible criteria in the vast areas of law and equity. Depending upon a
consideration of the entire provision, its nature, its object and the consequences that
would follow from constru ing it one way or the other, the convertibility of said terms
7
either as mandatory or permissive is a standard recourse in statutory construction .
Thus , Black is authority for the rule that "Where the statute provides for the doing of
some act which is required by justice or public duty, or where it invests a public body,
municipality or public officer with power and authority to take some action which
concerns the public interest or rights of individuals, the permissive language will be
construed as mandatory and the execution of the power may be insisted upon as a
duty" (Black, Interpretation of Laws, pp. 540-543) .8 The matter here involved not
only concerns public interest but also goes into the jurisdiction of this Court and is of
the essence of the proceedings taken thereon . On this point, there is authority to the
fact that in statutes relating to procedures, as is the ones now under consideration ,
prescribed for the protection or benefit of the party affected, is mandatory. 9 The
In this case , it is without doubt that petitioner timely filed on June 26, 2006, its
administrative claim 10 for the issuance of tax credit certificate for its alleged unutilized
input taxes for the four quarters of taxable year 2005, since it was made within the
7
De Mesa vs. Mencias, G.R. No . 24583, October 29, 1966.
8
!d. , citing Black, Interpretati on of Laws, pp. 540-543 .
9
10
Exhibit " f-1", Docket, pp. 114 to ll 6. rr
Gonzaga, Statutes and their Constructi on, p. 98, citing: Estate ofNaval , G.R. No. L-6736, May 4, 1954-,J
\1
952
AMENDED DECISIO N
C.T.A. Case No. 7583
Page 6 ofq
However, the instant Petition for Review was belatedly filed on March 28,
2007 , since it was filed beyond thirty (30) days after the expiration of the 120-day
presented as follows :
Section 11 2, that the date of filing of the administrative claim is separate and distinct,
support thereof, it is apparent that petitioner, upon filing the said administrative claim ,
conclude that the reckoning date of the 120-day period under Section 112(0) of th~J'i
953
AMEN DE D DECIS IO N
C.T.A . Case No. 7583
Page 7 off)
claim . Thus, when petitioner filed the instant appeal by way of the instant Petition for
Review on March 28, 2007 , this Court has no more appellate jurisdiction to entertain
the same as the thirty-day period to appeal the presumed denial of its refund claim
through the respondent's inaction thereon , had long lapsed on November 23, 2006.
controversy ,13 and is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a
court which , otherwise , would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature
of an action . Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of
of the parties.14 If the court has no jurisdiction over. the nature of an action , its only
jurisdiction is to dismiss the case . The court could not decide the case on the
merits.15
12
G.R. No. 132428, October 24,2000.
13
198, .i
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Vi fla, eta/. , G.R. No. L-23988 , January 2, 1968.
14 .
Laresma vs. Abe/lana, G.R . No. 140973 , November II , 2004. ).
" PI" " "'" to o, G~man, " a/ " &calana, " a!., G.R. Na . L-51773, May 16, U
AME NDED DECIS IO N
C.T.A . Case No . 7583
Page 8 o f ~
it can only take cognizance of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction .16
Thus , when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the cla im.17
jurisdictional grounds.
SO ORDERED.
E~UY
As!~~tice
WE CONCUR:
L . o~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
ce
16
Ker & Company, Ltd vs. Court of Tax Appeals, eta!. , supra.
17
Section I, Rule 9, Rules of Court. .
AMENDED DEC ISION
C.T.A. Case No. 7583
Page 9 of9
CERTIFICATION
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division .
~u. O~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Justice
Chairperson, First Division
95 G