ADVANCED WORLD SYSTEMS, INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Special Third Division ADVANCED WORLD SYSTEM, CTA CASE NO. 9983 INC., Petitioner, Members: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. Promulgated: COMMISSIONER OF MAR 1 3 2025 INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court' s resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated 11 July 2023}, filed on August 4, 2023, without any comment from respondent.,1 assailing the Court's Decision, dated July 11, 2023, which dismissed the instant Petition for Review for being belatedly filed . The Motion lacks merit. Petitioner is tellingly silent on Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, Taganito Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Phi/ex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue2 ("San Roque"), Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,3 and Silicon Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue,-t which served as the jurisprudential basis for Our ruling. It does not directly refute these cases, Our taking these cases to be applicable to here, or Our use of the rulings in these cases. Given that this Court cannot simply ignore the declarations of the Supreme Court for no clear reason, We find it prudent to uphold Our finding that petitioner's judicial claim for tax credit is beyond this Court's jurisdiction, having been filed~ See Records Verification, dated February 17, 2025, Rollo Vol. 3, unpaginated. G.R. No. 187485, G.R. o. 19611 3, & G.R. No. 197156, February 12, 2013. G.R. No. 168950, January 14 , 2015 . G.R. No. 182737, March 2, 20 16.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9983 Page 2 of3 beyond the 120+3 0-day period provided by the National Internal Revenue Code of1997, as amended, prior to the passing ofthe Republic Act No. 10963, also known as the TRAIN Law. Indeed, the only jurisprudence cited by petitioner that is directly related to the issue at hand is Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership.5 Yet even a cursory review of said case reveals that it actually affirms the earlier San Roque in saying that a judicial claim filed beyond the 120+3 0-day period is fatally late. Neither is the Court convinced by petitioner's contention that the TRAIN Law is retroactively applicable to its case. Retroactive applicability is not simply a matter of "allow it if it benefits the taxpayer." Following Securities and Exchange Commission v. Laigo,6 " [t]he rule is that where the provisions of a statute clarify an existing law and do not contemplate a change in that law, the statute may be given curative, remedial and retroactive effect. . . . curative statutes are those enacted to cure defects, abridge superfluities, and curb certain evils." Such statutes implement and/or make explicit already existing rights. This cannot be said of TRAIN: the fact that the Ease ofPaying Taxes Act reintroduced the second prescriptive period for filing judicial claims (the 90+30-day period), shows that such a period was not a "defect," "superfluity," or "evil." Consequently, TRAIN' s removal of the 120+30-day period does not merely clarify an existing law or implement an existing right. It thus cannot be applied retroactively to petitioner' s case. All told, the Court sees no reason to reverse Our ruling. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated 11 July 2023], filed on August 4, 2023 , is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated July 11 , 2023 , is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIARO G.R. No. 19 1498, January 15, 20 14. 6 G.R. No. 188639, September 2, 2015.

RE OL T IO ' CTA CASE 0. 9983 I CONCUR: ~. ~ _, '----- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice