G.R. No.

187485 – October 8, 2013

CIR vs. San Roque Power Corporation
Ponente: Carpio, J.

Facts (Feb. 2013 Decision):

San Roque filed a claim for tax refund with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on March 28, 2003
Due to CIR’s inaction, San Roque filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals on April 10, 2003
The CTA Second Division denied San Roque’s Claim.
Upon San Roque’s Motion for New Trial, the CTA Second Division ordered that the CIR to refund the tax paid by
San Roque.
The CIR filed a Petition for Review with the CTA En Banc. The latter dismissed the CIR’s petition.
Upon Petition for Review by CIR to the SC, the latter ruled that the tax claim of San Roque should be denied
because it failed to wait for the 120-day period to lapse before filing its judicial claim.

Section 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. –

xxx xxx xxx

(D) Period within which refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be made. – In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the
tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of
the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof.

In cases of full or partial denial for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the
period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the
expiration of the one hundred twenty day period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals.

Facts re. BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03

Issued on Dec. 10, 2003, wherein BIR Deputy Commissioner Bunag opined that a 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 Petion for Review.
Based on the Court of Appeals’ decision on the Hitachi Case
Declared erroneous by the Supreme Court per the Aichi Case on October 2010

Facts: (October 2013 MR):

San Roque prays before the Supreme Court that the rule established in its Feb. 2013 decision be given only a
prospective effect, arguing that the BIR and CIR’s treatment of the 120 + 30 period constitutes an operative fact

To bolster its argument, the corporation asserts that the BIR and CTA in actual practice did not observe and did not
require refund seekers to comply with the 120 + 30 day periods.

Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of operative fact is applicable in the instant case.

Ruling: No. The doctrine of operative fact is inapplicable.

Ratio Decidendi: