COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION GR. Nos. 187485, 196113, & 197156, 12 February 2013, EN BANC (Carpio, |!) ‘The Atlas doctrine which held that claims for refund or credit of input VAT must comply with the two-year prescriptive period under Section 229, should be effective onb from its ‘promulgation on 8 June 2007 until its abandonment on 12 September 2008 in Mirant. The “Atlas doctrine was limited to the reckoning of the two-year presriptive period fram the date of payment of the output VAT. Taganito Mining Corporation, a duly organized corporation and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) a letter claiming a tax credit/refund of its supposed input VAT for the period January 1, 2005 t0 December 31, 2005. [As the statutory period within which to file a claim for refund for said input VAT is about to lapse without action on the part of the CIR, Taganito filed the instant Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division which partially granted such claim. The CIR, then, filed a Petition for Review before the CTA Ew Bane praying that Taganito’s entire claim for refund be denied. The CTA En Banc granted the CIR’s petition declaring that the ewo-year prescriptive period to file a refund for input VAT arising from zero-rated sales should be reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, The CTA En Bane found that Taganito’s judicial claim was filed after the lapse of only 92 days from the filing of its administrative claim before the CIR, in violation of the 120-day period prescribed in Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code. UST LAW LAW REVIEW, VOL. LVIIL, NO. 1, OCTOBER 2013TAXATION Law 09 ISSUE: Did the Court of Tax Appeals commit a serious error in interpreting Section 112 (D) of the NIRC? HELD: ‘ No. Taxpayers should not be prejudiced by an erroneous interpretation by the Commissioner, particularly on a difficult question of law. The abandonment of the Atlas doctrine is a proof that the reckoning of the prescriptive periods for input VAT tax refund or credit isa difficult question of law. Absent any fraud, bad faith or misrepresentation, the reversal by this Court of a general interpretative rule issued by the Commissioner, like the reversal of specific BIR ruling under Section 246, should also apply prospectively: ‘Taganito filed its petition for review with the CTA without waiting for the 120-day period to lapse and a judicial claim before the promulgation of the Atlas doctrine, which held that claims for refund or credit of input VAT must comply swith the two-year prescriptive period under Section 229, should be effective only from its promulgation on 8 June 2007 until its abandonment on 12 September 2008 in Mirant. Taganito filed a Petition for Review: with the CTA on 14 February 2007. This is almost four months before the adoption of the Adas doctrine on 8 June 2007, Taganizo cannot claim to be misled, misguided, or confused by the Atlas doctrine. ‘Taganito can invoke BIR Ruling No, DA-489-03, dated 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010, which expressly stated that the “taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review.” Taganito filed its judicial claim after the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 but before the adoption of the Aichi doctrine, which reinstated the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional before a judicial claim can be filed. Thus, Taganito is deemed to have filed its judicial claim with the CTA on time. UST LAW LAW REVIEW, VOL. LVEL, NO. 1, OCTOBER 2013,