Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (March 13, 2013)

8/10/2019 Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (March 13, 2013)

1/5

Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (March 13, !13)

"he #acts

Petitioner Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation (petitioner) is a corporation duly organized andregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is also a valueadded tax (!"#)

registered entity with the $arge #axpayer %istrict o& the 'ureau o& Internal evenue ('I).*or theyear ++,- it regularly &iled its amended uarterly !"# returns. /n "pril 0- ++1- it &iled anadministrative claim &or re&und o& P+-102-30.4 representing excess input tax attri5uta5le to itse&&ectively zerorated sales in ++,- computed as &ollows61

/utput !"# &rom #axa5le Sales (,+7) P 2-38-+.+

$ess6 Input !"# &rom #axa5le Sales (,-834-,,,.1)

Input !"# &rom 9erorated Sales (0-131-812.,8)

e&unda5le Excess Input !"# (P +-102-30.4)

Pending review 5y the 'I- on "pril 2- ++1- petitioner &iled a petition &or review with the C#"-reuesting &or the issuance o& a tax credit certi&icate in the amount o& P+-102-30.4.0

/n :anuary ;- ++4- the *irst %ivision o& the C#" denied the petition &or insu&&iciency o&evidence.2


2/5

Commissioner o& Internal evenue-,that Section ,,1 o& the NIC did not distinguish 5etween asales invoice and an o&&icial receipt- the C#" En 'anc &ound petitioner@s sales invoices to 5eaccepta5le proo& to support its claim &or re&und or issuance o& a tax credit certi&icate representing itsexcess or unutilized input !"# arising &rom zerorated or e&&ectively zerorated sales.

#he CI &iled a motion &or reconsideration- arguing that the sales invoice- which supported the sale

o& goods- was not the same as the o&&icial receipt- which must support the sale o& services. Inaddition- it pointed out that the C#" had no ?urisdiction over the petition &or review 5ecause it was&iled 5e&ore the lapse o& the ,+day period accorded to the CI to decide on its administrative claim&or input !"# re&und.,1

In another reversal o& opinion- the C#" En 'anc set aside the =arch 0- ++4 "mended %ecisionand the :une ,;- ++4 esolution o& the C#" *irst %ivision and dismissed the petition &or review &orlac> o& ?urisdiction. In its =ay ,1- +,, esolution-,0the C#" En 'anc held that the ,+day periodunder Section ,,(%) o& the NIC- which granted the CI the opportunity to act on the claim &orre&und- was ?urisdictional in nature such that petitioner@s &ailure to o5serve the said period 5e&oreresorting to ?udicial action warranted the dismissal o& its petition &or review &or having 5eenprematurely &iled- in accordance with the ruling in Commissioner o& Internal evenue v. "ichi *orging

Company o& "sia- Inc.

,2

Aith respect to the use o& o&&icial receipts interchangea5ly with salesinvoices- the tax court cited the ruling o& the Court in epco Philippines Corporation v. Commissionero& Internal evenue,;which concluded that a !"# invoice and a !"# receipt should not 5e con&usedas re&erring to the same thing. " !"# invoice was the seller@s 5est proo& o& the sale o& the goods orservices to the 5uyer while the !"# receipt was the 5uyer@s 5est evidence o& the payment o& goodsand services received &rom the seller.

Dence- this petition.

"he Issues

Petitioner raises the &ollowing uestions6

ADE#DE / N/# #DE C/


3/5

Petitioner is mista>en.

#he provision in uestion is Section ,,(%) (now su5paragraph C) o& the NIC6

Sec. ,,. e&unds or #ax Credits o& Input #ax

x x x

(%) Period within which e&und or #ax Credit o& Input #axes shall 5e =ade. F In proper cases- theCommissioner shall grant a re&und or issue the tax credit certi&icate &or credita5le input taxes withinone hundred twenty (,+) days &rom the date o& su5mission o& complete documents in support o& theapplication &iled in accordance with Su5sections (") and (') hereo&.

In case o& &ull or partial denial o& the claim &or tax re&und or tax credit- or the &ailure on the part o& theCommissioner to act on the application within the period prescri5ed a5ove- the taxpayer a&&ectedmay- within thirty (1+) days &rom the receipt o& the decision denying the claim or a&ter the expirationo& the one hundred twenty dayperiod- appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court o& #ax

"ppeals. (Emphasis Supplied)

" simple reading o& the a5oveuoted provision reveals that the taxpayer may appeal the denial orthe inaction o& the CI only within thirty (1+) days &rom receipt o& the decision denying the claim orthe expiration o& the ,+day period given to the CI to decide the claim. 'ecause the law iscategorical in its language- there is no need &or &urther interpretation 5y the courts and noncompliance with the provision cannot 5e ?usti&ied.+"s elouently stated in izal Commercial'an>ing Corporation v. Intermediate "ppellate Court and '* Domes- Inc.6,

It 5ears stressing that the &irst and &undamental duty o& the Court is to apply the law. Ahen the law isclear and &ree &rom any dou5t or am5iguity- there is no room &or construction or interpretation. "s has5een our consistent ruling- where the law spea>s in clear and categorical language- there is nooccasion &or interpretationG there is only room &or application (Ce5u Portland Cement Co. vs.

=unicipality o& Naga- 0 SC"8+3 H,4;3).

Ahere the law is clear and unam5iguous- it must 5e ta>en to mean exactly what it says and thecourt has no choice 5ut to see to it that its mandate is o5eyed (Chartered 'an> Employees

"ssociation vs. /ple- ,13 SC" 81 H,432G $uzon Surety Co.- Inc. vs. %e Jarcia- 1+ SC" ,,,H,4;4G Kui?ano vs. %evelopment 'an> o& the Philippines- 12 SC" 8+ H,48+).

/nly when the law is am5iguous or o& dou5t&ul meaning may the court interpret or construe its trueintent. "m5iguity is a condition o& admitting two or more meanings- o& 5eing understood in more thanone way- or o& re&erring to two or more things at the same time. " statute is am5iguous i& it isadmissi5le o& two or more possi5le meanings- in which case- the Court is called upon to exerciseone o& its ?udicial &unctions- which is to interpret the law according to its true intent.

=oreover- contrary to petitioner@s position- the ,+L1+day period is indeed mandatory and?urisdictional- as recently ruled in Commissioner o& Internal evenue v. San oue PowerCorporation.1#hus- &ailure to o5serve the said period 5e&ore &iling a ?udicial claim with the C#"would not only ma>e such petition premature- 5ut would also result in the nonacuisition 5y the C#"o& ?urisdiction to hear the said case.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt23


4/5

'ecause the ,+L1+ day period is ?urisdictional- the issue o& whether petitioner complied with thesaid time &rame may 5e 5roached at any stage- even on appeal. Aellsettled is the rule that theuestion o& ?urisdiction over the su5?ect matter can 5e raised at any time during the proceedings.

:urisdiction cannot 5e waived 5ecause it is con&erred 5y law and is not dependent on the consent oro5?ection or the acts or omissions o& the parties or any one o& them.0Conseuently- the &act that the

CI &ailed to immediately express its o5?ection to the premature &iling o& the petition &or review 5e&orethe C#" is o& no moment. 1wphi1

"s to petitioner@s contention that it relied on the previous decisions o& the C#" on the matter- theCourt &inds it apt to uote its ruling in San oue6

#here is also the claim that there are numerous C#" decisions allegedly supporting the argumentthat the &iling dates o& the administrative and ?udicial claims are inconseuential- as long as they arewithin the twoyear prescriptive period. Su&&ice it to state that C#" decisions do not constituteprecedents- and do not 5ind this Court or the pu5lic. 1wphi1#hat is why C#" decisions are appeala5le tothis Court- which may a&&irm- reverse or modi&y the C#" decisions as the &acts and the law maywarrant. /nly decisions o& this Court constitute 5inding precedents- &orming part o& the Philippine

legal system.2

Pursuant to the ruling o& the Court in San oue- the ,+L1+day period is mandatory and?urisdictional &rom the time o& the e&&ectivity o& epu5lic "ct (.".) No. 300 or the #ax e&orm "ct o&,448. #he Court- however- too> into consideration the issuance 5y the 'I o& uling No. %"034+1-which expressly stated that the taxpayer need not wait &or the lapse o& the ,+day period 5e&oresee>ing ?udicial relie&. 'ecause taxpayers cannot 5e &aulted &or relying on this declaration 5y the 'I-the Court deemed it reasona5le to allow taxpayers to &ile its ?udicial claim even 5e&ore the expirationo& the ,+day period. #his exception is to 5e o5served &rom the issuance o& the said ruling on%ecem5er ,+- ++1 up until its reversal 5y "ichi on /cto5er ;- +,+. In the landmar> case o& "ichi-this Court made a de&initive statement that the &ailure o& a taxpayer to wait &or the decision o& the CIor the lapse o& the ,+day period will render the tiling o& the ?udicial claim with the C#"premature.;"s a conseuence- its promulgation once again made it clear to the taxpayers that the

,+L 1+day period must 5e o5served.

"s laid down in San oue- ?udicial claims &iled &rom :anuary ,- ,443 until the present should strictlyadhere to the ,+L 1+day period re&erred to in Section ,, o& the NIC. #he only exception is theperiod &rom %ecem5er ,+- ++1 until /cto5er ;- +,+- during which- ?udicial claims may 5e tiledeven 5e&ore the expiration o& the ,+day period granted to the CI to decide on the claim &orre&und.

'ased on the &oregoing discussion and the ruling in San oue- the petition must &ail 5ecause the?udicial claim o& petitioner was &iled on "pril 2- ++1- only one day a&ter it su5mitted itsadministrative claim to the CI. Petitioner &ailed to wait &or the lapse o& the reuisite ,+day periodor the denial o& its claim 5y the CI 5e&ore elevating the case to the C# " 5y a petition &or review. "s

its ?udicial claim was &iled during which strict compliance with the ,+L 1+day period was reuired-the Court cannot 5ut declare that the &iling o& the petition &or review with the C# " was premature andthat the C#" had no ?urisdiction to hear the case.

Daving thus concluded- the Court sees no need to discuss other issues which may have 5een raisedin the petition.

ADEE*/E- the petition is %ENIE%.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_196907_2013.html#fnt26


5/5

S/ /%EE%.

Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (March 13, 2013)

Documents

Transcript of Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (March 13, 2013)