THE COURT of Tax Appeals (CTA) has upheld its ruling that granted part of Maersk Global Services Centers (Philippines), Ltd.’s refund claim in the amount of P32.52 million representing its excess input value-added tax traced to its zero-rated sales for the year 2016.
In a 12-page decision dated June 7 and made public on June 8, the CTA sitting en banc said the firm belatedly filed its judicial claim with the CTA Third Division, which did not allow the court to have jurisdiction over the appeal.
“The Supreme Court has also stated that any claim filed in a period less than or beyond then 120+30 [now 90+30] days provided by the NIRC is outside the jurisdiction of the CTA,” Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan said in the ruling.
Under the Tax Code and as amended by the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Law, the commissioner of internal revenue (CIR) has 90 days to act on an administrative claim for refund, while the taxpayer may appeal the claim with the CTA within 30 days.
Maersk primarily engages in providing corporate and administrative services for the ocean transportation business of its affiliate, A.P. Moller-Maersk Line A/S, a nonresident foreign corporation based in Denmark.
The firm initially sought a P38.68-million refund and argued that the CTA Third Division made an error when it disallowed some of the sales of the services it made to and paid for by its client, Maersk Line A/S.
Maersk said the documents it submitted had been examined by the court-approved independent certified public accountant, which affirmed that the sales had been paid for.
The CTA full court disagreed with its Third Division’s finding and said the legal claims were timely filed. It said while the was a denial letter from the CIR received by Maersk, it was already beyond the mandated period.
It said the firm filed its petition on July 27, two days after the deadline.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Roman G. Del Rosario said the CTA Third Division had jurisdiction over the case and voted for the CTA en banc to resolve the case on its merits.
He argued that Maersk’s petition was timely filed, within the period prescribed under the law, which he said was before August 25.
In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo agreed with the full court’s ruling, saying the firm had only up to July 25 to file its appeal.
“Maersk had until July 25, 2018, to seek judicial recourse,” she said.
“Ergo, the late filing of its Petition for Review on July 27, 2018, resulted in the Court in Division’s non-acquisition of jurisdiction over the case.” — John Victor D. Ordoñez