PHILIPPINE AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT SOLUTIONS, INC. (formerly Philippine Airport and Ground Services Globeground, Inc.) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PHILIPPINE AIRPORT CTA Case No. 10202 GROUND SUPPORT SOLUTIONS, INC. (formerly Members: Philippine Airport and Ground Services Globeground, Inc.), DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, Petitioner, FABON-VICTORINO, and MANAHAN, JJ. -versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, 'JAN 23 . 9;5be- Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- RESOLUTI This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Resolution dated 22 November 2019] filed on December 20, 2019. The assailed Resolution dated November 22, 2019 dismissed petitioner's Petition for Review filed on October 25, 20 19, on the ground of failure to comply with the mandatory and jurisdictional 120+30 day periods under Section 112(C) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (NIRC). In its Motion, petitioner states that it opted to wait for the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) before filing its judicial claims with the Court ofTa){ Appeals (CTA). We reiterate that in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation1 (San Roque case), the Supreme Court held that the ta){payer can file an appeal in one of two ways: (1) file the judicial claim within 30 days after the BIR Commissioner denies the claim within the 120-day waiting period, or (2) file the judicial claim within 30 days from the 1 G.R. Nos . 187485, 196113, and 197156, February 12, 2013; also, cited in RohmApollo Semiconductor Philippines v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015 ............----

RESOLUTION CTA CASE No. 10202 expiration of the 120-day period if the BIR Commissioner does not act within that period. This was further reiterated in Silicon Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue,2 which stated: 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 period, whichever is sooner. (Underscoring ours) In this case, petitioner states that it filed its administrative claim on December 14, 20123 and submitted supporting documents immediately thereafter.4 Counting 120 days from December 14, 2012, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) had until April 13, 2013 within which to act on petitioner's claim for refund. Considering that respondent failed to act thereon within the 120-day period, petitioner had thirty (30) days after the lapse of the 120-day period or until May 13, 2013 within which to file its judicial appeal before this Court. It should be noted that a denial of the claim of refund made after the 120+30 day period is not considered in counting the period for judicial appeal. This is because the inaction of the CIR during the 120-day period is "deemed a denial", and without a timely appeal, said inaction which is "deemed a denial" becomes final and unappealable.5 Furthermore, in a later Supreme Court ruling following the San Roque case, the Court held, to wit: The CIR's inaction is the decision itself. It is already a denial of the refund claim. Thus, the taxpayer must file an appeal within 30 days from the lapse of the 120-day waiting period.6 The receipt of the denial dated September 17, 20 19 of the claim for refund on September 25, 2019, which is after the 120- day period is inconsequential, even with the effectivity of the TRAIN law. It should be noted that the "deemed a denial" 2 G.R. No. 182737, March 2, 2016. 3 Petition for Review, p. 2. 4 Id. 5 Steag State Power, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205282, January 14, 2019, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, February 12,2013. 6 Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015. _.....-

RESOLUTION CTA CASE No. 10202 became final long before the TRAIN law became effective on January 1, 2018. Petitioner's reliance on Revenue Regulations No. 1-20177 is misplaced. Nothing therein modified the periods to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, as it merely stated the respective jurisdictions of the CTA and the BIR in evaluating claims for refund. It has been emphasized repeatedly that compliance with the 120+30 day periods prescribed under Section 112(C) of the NIRC is mandatory and jurisdictional.s Accordingly, petitioner's belated filing of its judicial claim rendered the Court devoid of jurisdiction over it. Thus, the dismissal of the instant Petition for Review is in order. WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Resolution dated 22 November 2019] is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice � ~7-~c.�~ -- . FABON-VICTORINO CATHERINE T. MANAHAN ciate Justice Associate Justice 7 Prescribing the Regulations Goveming Applications for Value-Added Tax (VAT) Credit/Refund Filed under Section 112 of the Tax Code, as Amended, Prior to Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 54-2014 dated June 11, 2014. 8 RohmApollo Semiconductor Philippines v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015.