CIR VS TEAM SUAL.docx

CIR VS. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION

FACTS:

TSC is a corporation that is principally engaged in the business of power generation and the subsequent sale thereof solely to National Power Corporation (NPC); it is registered with the Bureau of Internal e!enue (BI) as a "#T ta$payer% &n No!e'ber * +,,,* the CI granted TSC-s application for .ero/rating arising fro' its sale of power generation ser!ices to NPC for the ta$able year 000% #s a "#T/ registered entity* TSC filed its "#T returns for the first* second* third* and fourth quarters of ta$able year 000 on #pril 1* 000* 2uly 3* 000* &ctober 3* 000* and 2anuary 3* 00+* respecti!ely% &n 4arch ++* 00* TSC filed with the BI an ad'inistrati!e clai' for refund* clai'ing that it is entitled to the unutili.ed input "#T in the a'ount of P+5,*6+1*,%3 arising fro' its .ero/rated sales to NPC for the ta$able year 000% &n #pril +* 00* without await'g the CI-s resolution of its ad'inistrati!e clai' for  refund7ta$ refund7ta$ credit* TSC filed a petition for re!iew with the CT # see8ing the refund or the issuance of a ta$ credit certificate in the a'ount of P+5,*6+1*,%3 for its unutili.ed input "#T for the ta$able year 000% The case was subsequently raffled to the CT# 9irst :i!ision% In his #nswer* the CI clai'ed that TSC-s clai' for refund7ta$ refund7ta$ credit should be denied* asserting that TSC failed to co'ply with the conditions precedent for clai'ing refund7ta$ credit of unutili.ed input "#T% The CI pointed out that TSC failed to sub'it co'plete docu'ents docu'ents in support of its application application for refund7ta$ refund7ta$ credit contrary to Section ++(C) ++(C)  of the National Internal e!enue Code (NIC)% &n 2anuary * 00,* the CT# 9irst :i!ision rendered a :ecision* 5 which granted TSC-s clai' for refund7ta$ credit of input "#T% Ne!ertheless* the CT# 9irst :i!ision found that* fro' the total unutili.ed input "#T "#T of P+5,*6+1*,%3 P+5,*6+1*,%3 that it clai'ed* TSC was only able to substantiate the a'ount of P+56*3*+%60% ISSUE:

hether or not the CT# CT# en en bane erred in holding that TSC-s petition for re!iew with the CT # was not pre'aturely filed< HELD:

The Court does not agree% There is no basis to TSC-s clai' that this Court* prior to  #ichi* had ruled that a ta$payer 'ay file a =udicial clai' for refund7ta$ credit with the CT  # sans co'pliance with the +0/day 'andatory period% The cases cited by TSC do not e!en re'otely support its contention% Indeed* nowhere in the said cases did the Court e!en discuss the +0/day 'andatory period under Section ++(C) of the NIC%