Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 207575 2015-07-15	HEDCOR v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
Thus, on 28 December 2009, petitioner filed with the BIR an administrative claim for the refund of excess and unused input VAT in the amount of P4,217,955.84 for the second quarter of taxable year 2008. On 23 March 2010, it admittedly received from the BIR a Letter of Authority or request for the presentation of records.[5] Nevertheless, petitioner filed on 6 July 2010 a Petition for Review docketed as CTA Case No. 8129 because of its apprehension that the two (2) years provided by law to file a judicial claim would lapse on 21 July 2010 in view of Atlas.[6]
	GR No. 191498 2014-01-15	CIR v. MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP SERENO, C.J.
On 8 June 2007, while the application for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT of Mindanao II was pending before the CTA Second Division, this Court promulgated Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR[13] (Atlas). Atlas held that the two-year prescriptive period for the filing of a claim for an input VAT refund or credit is to be reckoned from the date of filing of the corresponding quarterly VAT return and payment of the tax.
	GR No. 193301 2013-03-11	MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP v. CIR CARPIO, J.
With respect to the fifth requirement, the CTA First Division tabulated the dates of filing of Mindanao II's return as well as its administrative and judicial claims, and concluded that Mindanao II's administrative and judicial claims were timely filed in compliance with this Court's ruling in Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Atlas).[14] The CTA First Division declared that the two-year prescriptive period for filing a VAT refund claim should not be counted from the close of the quarter but from the date of the filing of the VAT return. As ruled in Atlas, VAT liability or entitlement to a refund can only be determined upon the filing of the quarterly VAT return.
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
In his dissent,[33] Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista insisted that Taganito timely filed its claim before the CTA. Justice Bautista read Section 112(C) of the 1997 Tax Code (Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made) in conjunction with Section 229 (Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected). Justice Bautista also relied on this Court's ruling in Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Atlas),[34] which stated that refundable or creditable input VAT and illegally or erroneously collected national internal revenue tax are the same, insofar as both are monetary amounts which are currently in the hands of the government but must rightfully be returned to the taxpayer. Justice Bautista concluded: Being merely permissive, a taxpayer claimant has the option of seeking judicial redress for refund or tax credit of excess or unutilized input tax with this Court, either within 30 days from receipt of the denial of its claim, or after the lapse of the 120-day period in the event of inaction by the Commissioner, provided that both administrative and judicial remedies must be undertaken within the 2-year period.[35]
	GR No. 159471 2011-01-26	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR PERALTA, J.
Petitioner herein had, in the past, similar petitions with this Court regarding the denial of its claims for tax refund of the input VAT on its purchases of capital goods and on its zero-rated sales. In Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR,[12] petitioner filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) its VAT Return for the first quarter of 1992 and also alleged that it filed with the BIR the corresponding application for the refund/credit of its input VAT on its purchases of capital goods and on its zero-rated sales in the amount of P26,030,460.00. Its application for refund/credit remained having been unresolved by the BIR, petitioner filed with the CTA, on April 20, 1994, a Petition for Review. Claiming to be a "zero-rated VAT person," petitioner prayed that the CTA order the CIR to refund/credit petitioner with the amount of P26,030,460.00, representing the input VAT it had paid for the first quarter of 1992. Both, the CTA and the CA denied the claims of petitioner, ratiocinating that its claim has been filed beyond the prescriptive period provided by law and that evidence presented was insufficient.