LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION LEPANTO CTA Case No.10787 CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Members: Petitioner, MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and -versus- ANGELES, fl. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, JAN 2 6 20211 Respondent. ~ ..7;. ~ () ;"" � - � )( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )( RESOLUTION The Ta)( Court is a court of special jurisdiction. As such, it can take cognizance only of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction.l In particular, our jurisdiction over refund cases is found in Section 7(a)(1) and (2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125,2 as amended by RA No. 9282, which provides: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise: a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: 1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters See Co111111issio11er of l Hlem nl R eve11 ue v. Cou rt of Tax Appeals- T hird D iv isio11, et nl., G.R. N o . 239464, May 10, 2021, citing Commissioner of Internal Reve1111e v. Villa, G.R. No. L-23988, January 2, 1968. 2 An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10787 arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; 2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial; Section 3(a)(l) and (2), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals3 clarified that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in Division has jurisdiction over the decision or inaction of respondent, involving refund of internal revenue taxes, among others.4 Specifically, before the CTA in Division may exercise its jurisdiction over unutilized input VAT refund cases, Section 112(C) of NIRC, as amended by RA No. 10963, otherwise known as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Law (TRAIN) must be strictly observed, which reads as follows: SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. - (C) Period within which Refund of Input Taxes shall be Made.- In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund for creditable input taxes within ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof: Provided, That should the Commissioner find that the grant of refund is not proper, the Commissioner must state in writing the legal and factual basis for the denial. A.M. 05-11-07-CTA. ' SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions.- The Court in Divisions shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessn1ents, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: ...

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10787 In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim, appeal the decision with the Court of Tax Appeals: Provided, however, That failure on the part of any official, agent, or employee of the BIR to act on the application within the ninety (90)-day period shall be punishable under Section 269 of this Code5 Pertinently, Energy Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (EDC)6 held that "the recent amendment (TRAIN) to Section 112 (C) finally removed the confusion on the reckoning period for judicial claims by legislating a singular action for the CIR to decide on the administrative claim for input VAT tax credit or refund within a period of ninety (90) days." EDC ordained that respondent is obligated by law to decide or act on the claimant's administrative claim for input VAT refund within (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application. Said action, too, must be received by the taxpayer-claimant within said period. Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 17-20187 confirmed: I. Claims for value-added tax (VAT) refund: A. General Policies 5.... Should the claim be for denial, such fact should be communicated in writing to the taxpayer within the 90- day period. The denial letter shall be signed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)/Deputy Commissioner - Operations Group (DCIR - OG)/ Assistant Commissioner (ACIR)/Regional Director, as the case may beB Boldfacing supplied. G.R. No. 203367, March 17, 2021. Italics supplied. 7 SUBJECT: Amending Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 89-2017 and Certain Provisions of RMC No. 54-2014 Regarding the Processing of Claims for Issuance of Tax Refund/Tax Credit Certificate (TCC) in Relation to Amendments Made in the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as Amended by Republic Act No. 10963, Known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN). Boldfacing supplied.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10787 Indeed, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has ninety (90) days from date of submission of complete supporting documents, to decide on the claimant's administrative claim for input VAT refund. At present, supporting documents are deemed complete upon the filing the refund claimant's administrative claim for input VAT refund.9 In turn, there are two (2) ways by which a claimant may invoke the Court in Division's jurisdiction: one, through a Petition for Review, filed within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the BIR's adverse decision rendered within said ninety (90)-day period; or two, through a Petition for Review, filed within thirty (30) days after the lapse of such ninety (90)-day period, whichever comes earlier. In other words, save for the reduction of the BIR's period to act on an administrative claim for input VAT refund, i.e., from 120 to 90 days, Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.) v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue10 remains good case-law to date: The judicial claim shall be filed within a period of 30 days after the receipt of respondent's decision or ruling or after the expiration of the 120-day [now 90-day] period, whichever is sooner. Aside from a specific exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the periods provided by the law, any claim filed in a period less than or beyond the 120+30 [now 90+30] days provided by the NlRC is outside the jurisdiction of the CTA.11 As alleged in its Petition for Review, on June 30, 2021, petitioner filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue VAT Credit Audit Division (BIR-VCAD), its administrative claim for input VAT refund covering the second to fourth quarters of Taxable Year 2019.12 On even date, petitioner submitted complete documents in support thereo�.13 Counting ninety (90) days from June 30,2021, the BIR-VCAD had until September 28, 2021 to decide on said administrative claim. There being no14 adverse decision received by petitioner from the BIR-VCAD as of September 28, 2021, the law considers its administrative claim as denied. Counting another thirty (30) days from September 28, 2021, petitioner had until October 28,2021 to seek judicial redress. Therefore, 9 See Zuellig-Phamw Asia Pacific Ltd. Phils. ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 244154, july 15, 2020. Beginning june 11,2014, or upon effectivity of RMC No. 54-2014, the documents are deemed complete upon filing of the claimant's administrative claim for input VAT refund. 10 G.R. No. 182737, March 2, 2016. 11 Boldfacing supplied. 12 Par. 3, Petition for Review in CTA Case No. 10787. Docket, p. 8. Pal". 6, Petition for Review in CTA Case No. 10787. Ibid. 14 According to petitioner, on january 25, 2022, it received the letter dated November 18, 2021, denying its administrative claim for input VAT refund subject of this case. See par. 8, Petition for Review in CTA Case No. 10787. Ibid.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10787 PageS of5 the belated15 filing of the Petition for Review on February 24, 2022 robbed us of jurisdiction over CTA Case No. 10787. In conclusion, it has been said that the party who intends to appeal must comply with the procedures and rules governing appeals; otherwise, the right of appeal may be lost or squandered.16 Petitioner turned blind to this injunction. WHEREFORE, CTA Case No. 10787 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. In view of this finding, we RESOLVE to: a. NOTE WITHOUT ACTION petitioner's Motion to Substitute a Witness and Admit Attached Judicial Affidavit of the Substitute (from Ms. Cherry H. Tan to Mr. Claude Mark A. Imbat), filed through accredited service provider on October 31, 2023; and b. CANCEL all the scheduled hearings in this case. SO ORDERED. C~'7.~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~ ~ f ~-ff1�~ MARIAN IV.fJF. REYES-FAJAIIDO Associate Justice HENR~NGELES Associate Justice 15 !d. at p. 7. 16 See Hernrc Realty Corporntion v. Tile Provincial Treasurer of Bntmzgns, G.R. No. 210736, September 5, 2018.