2. atlas mining vs cir-cd

8/12/2019 2. Atlas Mining vs CIR-CD

1/3

ATLAS MINING vs CIR

G.R. Nos. 141104 & 148763 June 8, 2007

FACTS AS TO !TITION!R

Petitioner, a VAT-registered taxpayer, filed with the BIR its VAT Return for thefirst quarter of 199 ! It alleged that it li"ewise filed with the BIR the#orresponding appli#ation for the refund$#redit of its input VAT on its pur#hasesof #apital goods and on its %ero-rated! &hen its appli#ation for refund$#reditre'ained unresol(ed )y the BIR, petitioner filed on * April 199+ its Petition forRe(iew with the TA whi#h the petition, on the ground of pres#ription! The #asewas ele(ated to the A whi#h dis'issed the appeal finding that althoughpetitioner #orporation ti'ely filed its Petitions for Re(iew with the TA, it still

failed to su)stantiate its #lai's for the refund$#redit of its input VAT!Petitioner#ontends that the said two-year pres#ripti(e period should )e #ounted, not fro'the #lose of the quarter when the %ero-rated sales were 'ade, )ut fro' the dateof filing of the quarterly VAT return and pay'ent of the tax due * daysthereafter!

FACTS AS TO R!S ON"!NT

The IR #ontends that petitioner s #lai' is )arred under Re(enue Regulations.os! -// and 0-//, i!e!, for failure to pro(e the *2 threshold for %ero-rating toapply and for failure to esta)lish the fa#tual )asis for the instant #lai'! It is the

position of the IR, that the Re(enue Regulations .o! -// should )e applied inthe #ases at )ar3 and to )e entitled to the %ero-rating of its sales to PA4AR andP5I6P574, petitioner, 'ust )e a)le to pro(e not only that PA4AR andP5I6P574 8 #orporations to who' petitioner 'ade %ero rating sales - are B7I-registered #orporations, )ut also that 'ore than *2 of the total annualprodu#tion of these #orporations are a#tually exported!

ISS#!S AS TO !TITION!R

1! Petitioner argues that the two-year pres#ripti(e period should run fro' thedate of the filing of the quarterly VAT return and pay'ent of tax due *

days thereafter!! Petitioner also argues that 4e#tion of Re(enue Regulations .o! -//should not ha(e )een applied to the %ero-rating of the sales 'ade )ypetitioner #orporation to PA4AR and P5I6P574!
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141104_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141104_2007.html#fnt2


2/3

ISS#!S AS TO R!S ON"!NT

1! Respondent argues that the two year pres#ripti(e period should run fro'the #lose of the quarter when the %ero-rated sales were 'ade!

! Respondent also #ontends that petitioner s #lai' is )arred under Re(enue

Regulations .os! -// and 0-//, i!e!, for failure to pro(e the *2 thresholdfor %ero-rating to apply and for failure to esta)lish the fa#tual )asis for theinstant #lai'!

R#LING

1! T5 4:PR ; 7:RT R:6 < I. =AV7R 7= P TITI7. R

Par >)? 4e#tion 11* pro(ides that the return shall )e filed and the tax paidwithin * days following the end of ea#h quarter spe#ifi#ally pres#ri)ed for aVAT-registered person! It is already well-settled that the two-year pres#ripti(e

period for instituting a suit or pro#eeding for re#o(ery of #orporate in#o'e taxerroneously or illegally paid under 4e#tion 0* 10 of the Tax ode of 19 , asa'ended, was to )e #ounted fro' the filing of the final ad@ust'ent return!

Also, In our Resolution in the #ase of CIR v. Asia Australia Express, Ltd. weruled that the two-year pres#ripti(e period within whi#h to #lai' a refund#o''en#es to run, at the earliest, on the date of the filing of the ad@usted finaltax return! It is 'ore pra#ti#al and reasona)le to #ount the two-yearpres#ripti(e period for filing a #lai' for refund$#redit of input VAT on %ero-rated sales fro' the date of filing of the return and pay'ent of the tax duewhi#h, a##ording to the law then existing, should )e 'ade within * days fro'the end of ea#h quarter!

! T5 4:PR ; 7:RT R:6 < I. =AV7R 7= P TITI7. R

4e#tion of Re(enue Regulations .o! -//, should not ha(e )een appliedto the %ero-rating of the sales 'ade )y petitioner #orporation to PA4ARand P5I6P574! At the onset, it 'ust )e e'phasi%ed that PA4AR andP5I6P574, in addition to )eing registered with the B7I, were alsoregistered with the P A and lo#ated within an export-pro#essing %one!

&ithout a#tual exportation, Arti#le 0 of the 7'ni)us In(est'ents ode of19/ also #onsiders #onstru#ti(e exportation as export sales! A'ongother types of #onstru#ti(e exportation spe#ifi#ally identified )y the saidpro(ision are sales to export pro#essing %ones! 4ales to export pro#essing%ones are su)@e#ted to spe#ial tax treat'ent!

This ourt then reiterates its #on#lusion that 4e#tion of Re(enueRegulations .o! -//, whi#h applied to %ero-rated export sales to export-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141104_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141104_2007.html#fnt13


3/3

oriented B7I-registered enterprises, should not )e applied to theappli#ations for refund$#redit of input VAT filed )y petitioner #orporationsin#e it )ased its appli#ations on the %ero-rating of export sales toenterprises registered with the P A and lo#ated within export pro#essing%ones!

=7R P .

Tax treat'ent of goods )rought into the export pro#essing %ones are only#onsistent with the

2. atlas mining vs cir-cd

Documents