a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC.,G.R. No. 184823
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC.,
G.R. No. 184823
October 6, 2010
On September 22, 2004, Aichi Forging filed a claim for tax refund for it's zero-rated sales with the Department of Finance One-Stop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center. On the same day, they also filed a Petition for Review with the CTA. CTA partially granted the refund, but the Commission of Internal Revenue filed a Motion for Reconsideration stating that the claim was filed beyond the 2 years prescriptive period. However, CTA and CTA En Banc denied their motion.
Whether or not the claim was filed within the prescriptive period under Sec. 112 (A) NIRC.
Yes, Sec. 31 Chapter VIII Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 applies making 1 year = 12 months. The principle of Lex Posterioni Derogati Priori applies. Thus, since it is filed on exactly Sept. 30, 2004, filing is timely.
Leave a Reply.