Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (MPC) G.R. No. 18044! "0 #anuar$ "01% Facts:
MPC is a duly-registered Philippine corporation located at Pagbilao Gran Grande de Isla Island nd in Pagbi agbila lao, o, Quez Quezon on,, and and prim primar aril ily y enga engage ged d in the the generation and distribution of electricity to the National Power Corporation Corporation N!P"C"# N!P"C"#$, $, a %!& e'empt e'empt ta'payer, ta'payer, under a (uild, (uild, "perate, "perate, &ransfer ransfer )cheme* It is registered with the (ureau of Internal #e+enue (I#$ as a %alue-!dded &a' %!&$ ta'payer* "n No+em No+ember ber , .///, .///, the (I# (I# appro appro+ed +ed MPC0s MPC0s applic applicati ation on for 12ecti+e 3ero-#ating for the construction and operation of its power plant* 4or ta'able year 555, the 6uarterly %!& returns 7led by MPC on !pril 8, 555, 9uly 8, 555, "ctober :, 555, and !ugust ;, 55. showed an e'cess input %!& paid of <.;,.:5,==.*>8*> Mar& ' 11! "00" "00 ", MPC 7led before the (I# an aministrative "n Mar&' &laim for refun of of its input %!& co+ering the ta'able year of 555, in 11" of the &a' Code* &hereafter, or on March accordance accordance with with e&tion 11" of later! MPC proceeded to 7le a petition for re+iew , 55 ! 1* a$s later! before the C&!, doc?eted as C&! Case No* :.;,/ +it'out +aiting for t'e CIR,s a&tion on t'e aministrative &laim * Issue:
@oes the C&! had Aurisdiction to entertain MPC0s Audicial claimB Held
It does not* !ccording to )ection .. of the &a' Code* In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the ta' credit certi7cate for creditable input ta'es within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission submission In case of full or partial denial of the claim for ta' refund or ta' credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed abo+e, the ta'payer a2ected may, may, within thirty (30) days from the rece receip iptt of the the deci decisi sion on deny denyin ing g the the clai claim m or afte afterr the the
expiration of the one hundred twenty-day (120) period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the [!"# Contrary to the speci7ed periods, speci7cally those that are pro+ided in the second paragraph of )ection ..@$, MPC 7led its petition for re+iew with the C&! on March , 55, or a mere .8 days after it 7led an administrati+e claim for refund with the CI# on March .., 55* It then did not wait for the lapse of the .5day period e'pressly pro+ided for by law within which the CI# shall grant or deny the application for refund* It is indisputable that compliance with the .5-day waiting period is manator$ an -urisi&tional. MPCDs failure to obser+e the mandatory .5-day period under the law was fatal to its immediate 7ling of a Audicial claim before the C&!* It rendered the 7ling of the C&! petition premature, and barred the ta' court from ac6uiring Aurisdiction o+er the same*
