Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 231 views

    CIR Vs Toledo Power Company

    Uploaded by

    Milcah Magpantay
    The Supreme Court ruled that TPC was not entitled to a refund of unutilized input VAT for 2004 because it failed to file its judicial claim within the prescribed period. However, for 2003, TPC's administrative claim for a refund was timely filed and it may claim a refund for input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales in the first quarter of 2003. The case was remanded to the CTA to compute the refund amount for that quarter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CIR Vs Toledo Power Company

    Uploaded by

    Milcah Magpantay
    231 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that TPC was not entitled to a refund of unutilized input VAT for 2004 because it failed to file its judicial claim within the prescribed period. However, for 2003, TPC's administrative claim for a refund was timely filed and it may claim a refund for input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales in the first quarter of 2003. The case was remanded to the CTA to compute the refund amount for that quarter.

    Original Description:

    CIR vs Toledo Power Company

    Original Title

    CIR vs Toledo Power Company

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that TPC was not entitled to a refund of unutilized input VAT for 2004 because it failed to file its judicial claim within the prescribed period. However, for 2003, TPC's administrative claim for a refund was timely filed and it may claim a refund for input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales in the first quarter of 2003. The case was remanded to the CTA to compute the refund amount for that quarter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    231 views1 page

    CIR Vs Toledo Power Company

    Uploaded by

    Milcah Magpantay
    The Supreme Court ruled that TPC was not entitled to a refund of unutilized input VAT for 2004 because it failed to file its judicial claim within the prescribed period. However, for 2003, TPC's administrative claim for a refund was timely filed and it may claim a refund for input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales in the first quarter of 2003. The case was remanded to the CTA to compute the refund amount for that quarter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CIR v.

    TOLEDO POWER COMPANY


    G.R. No. 195175, August 10, 2015

    FACTS:

    Toledo Power Company (TPC) is engaged in the business of power generation and the sale thereof to the
    National Power Corporation (NPC), Cebu Electric Cooperative III (CEBECO), Atlas Consolidated Mining
    and Development Corporation, and Atlas Fertilizer Corporation.

    C.T.A. EB No. 589 (G.R. No. 195175)


    TPC filed a claim for refund with the BIR for alleged unutilized input VAT for the four quarters of
    2004,Pursuant to the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) which states that VAT on sales
    of generated power by generation companies are zero-rated. TPC’s claim was elevated to the CTA. The
    CTA First Division partly granted the Petition and ordered the refund of part of the unutilized input VAT.
    In its Motion for Reconsideration, the CIR raised the issue of failure to submit the legally required
    documents in its administrative application for a refund; but the CTA En Banc denied the CIR’s appeal.

    C.T.A. EB No. 708 (G.R. No. 199645)


    TPC filed with BIR RDO No. 83 an administrative claim for the refund of the alleged unutilized input VAT
    for the four quarters of 2003. The 2 petitions filed with the CTA were consolidated. The CTA First
    Division partly granted the refund. Upon MR of both parties, the original Decision was set aside and the
    Motion for Reconsideration of the CIR, granted. The appeal of TPC to the CTA En Banc was dismissed.

    ISSUE:
    WON TPC is entitled to the refund of its alleged unutilized input VAT

    HELD:
    > NO. In G.R. No. 195175- The date was clearly within two years from the close of the taxable quarters
    when the sales were made. In this case, however, since the filing of the administrative claim was done
    within the period where BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was recognized valid, TPC is not compelled to observe
    the 120-day waiting period. Nevertheless, it should have filed the Petition within 30 days after the
    expiration of the 120-day period.TPC should have filed its judicial claim from 23 December 2004 until 22
    May 2005; however, it filed its Petition to the CTA only on 24 April 2006.TPC’s situation is not a case of
    premature filing of a judicial claim, but of late filing.TPC lost its right to claim a refund or credit of its
    alleged excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales for taxable year 2004
    by virtue of its own failure to observe the prescriptive periods.

    > YES. In G.R. No. 199645- The administrative claim for the refund of unutilized input VAT was timely
    filed on 23 December 2004, which was within two years from the close of the first and the second
    quarters of 2003 when the sales were made. In theory, the CTA does not have jurisdiction over the
    Petition, since it was filed on the last day of the 120-day period for the CIR, or without waiting for the
    expiration of the aforesaid period. However, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 allows this premature filing. TPC
    may claim the benefits of that ruling in its Petition in C.T.A. Case No. 7233 for the refund of the
    unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales for the first quarter of
    2003. The Case was REMANDED to the CTA insofar as the Petition in C.T.A. Case No. 7233, for the
    purpose of the computation of the refundable input VAT attributable to the zero-rated or effectively
    zero-rated sales of Toledo Power Corporation for the first quarter of 2003.

    You might also like