CITY TREASURER OF MAKATI, rep. by ACTING CITY TREASURER JESUSA E. CUNETA v. KURIMOTO (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION

i:' REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION CITY TREASURER OF CTA AC NO. 257 MAKATI rep. by ACTING CITY TREASURER Members: JESUSA E. CUNETA, BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and Petitioner, CUI-DAVID, JJ. -versu s - KURIMOTO (PHILIPPINES) Promu lgated: CORPORATION, MAR 0 5 2024 Respondent. J{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Yij -~.-- - - J{ RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J .: For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (on the Decision of the CTA-Second Division promulgated on August 31, 2023) filed on September 22, 2023, without respondent's comment as per Records Verification dated January 3, 2024. Petitioner prays for the reconsideration and setting aside of the Decision dated August 31, 2023 (assailed Decision) , which disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered , the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Orders dated June 7 , 2021 and November 17, 2021 of the RTC Branch 132, Makati City, in Civil Case No. R-MKT-19-00308-CV are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Petitioner argues that the reckoning period for filing a protest for refund was on January 17, 2017, when the Billing Assessment amounting to P162,400.86 was issued to respond ent for ta)Cable year (TY) 20 16, and not on June 5 , 2018,

~ RESOLUTION - CTA AC No. 257 City Treasurer of Makati rep. by Acting City Treasurer Jesusa E. Cuneta v. Kurimoto (Philippines) Corporation x--------------------------------------------------------------------x when a Notice of Assessmentl for deficiency taxes, fees, and charges amounting to P4,670,384.44, which covered TYs 2013 to 2017, was issued to respondent; that the protest filed by respondent on July 30, 3018 did not pertain to the subject tax refu nd; and the protest letter filed by respondent on December 14, 2018 to the January 17, 2017 Billing Assessment is beyond the prescriptive period under Section 195 of the Local Government Code (LGC). Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is bereft of merit. Petitioner pu t forth the same arguments already considered, discussed, and passed upon by the Cou rt in the assailed Decision. Petitioner posits that since respondent paid the subject claim pursuant to the January 17, 2017 Billing Assessment, it was required to follow the procedure stated in Section 195 of the LGC by filing a written protest within the 60- day period. Petitioner's argument is speciou s . The fact that respondent paid the assessment does not preclude it from claiming a refund or credit under Section 196 of the LGC. This was explain ed by t h e Supreme Court in City Treasurer of Manila v. Philippine Beverage Partners, Inc.:2 ...[I]t is entirely possible that the taxpayer, who had received a notice of assessment, paid the assessed tax, fee or charge believing it to be e rroneous o r illegal. Thus, under such circumstance, the taxpayer may subsequently direct his c laim pursuant to Section 196 of the LGC. [Emphasis supplied] To recall, this case arose due to respondent's petition for tax refund amounting to P162,400.86-representing its paid local business tax (LBT) for TY 20 16-that was filed with the lower court within two (2) years from the payment of the said amount. Since the present action is a claim for r efund, Section 1963 of the LGC a pplies. 1 Exhibit ��G��, JSFI, RTC rolla - Vol. 2. p. II 0. 2 GR. No. 233556, September II. 20 19. 3 SEC. 196. Claim for Ref und ofTax Credit. - No case or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any tax. fee. or charge erroneously or illegally collected unti l a written claim for refund or credit has been filed with the local treasurer. No case or proceeding sha ll be entertained in any court after the expiration of two (2) yea rs from t he da te of the payment of such tax, fee, or charge, or from t he date th e taxpayer is entitled to a refund or credit. [Emphasis supplieclJ

RESOLUTION � CTA AC No. 257 City Treasurer of Mak a t i rep . by Acting City Treasurer J esu s a E. Cu n eta v. Kurim oto (Philippines) Corporation x-- ---------- ------------------------ --- ------ -----------------------x Contrary to respondent's assertion, the Court did not tack the reckoning period for appeal on June 5, 2018. Since respondent paid the subject refund claim on January 23, 2017, it had two (2) years therefrom, or until January 23, 2019, to file its administrative and judicial claims, which petitioner both complied with. Nonetheless, petitioner subsequently issued the July 18, 2019 Revised Notice of Assessment which noted that the !>243 ,491.99 tax overpayment r efundable to the petitioner includes the subject refund claim of respondent. Said fact further cements respondent's entitlement to the refund claim, which it properly pursued under the procedure stated in Section 196 of the LGC. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (on the Decision of the CTA-Second Division promulgated on August 31, 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LAN~ EE S� . CUI~AVID Associate Justice !CONCUR: ..__