This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the more recent case of Taganito Mining Corporation v. CIR,[38] the Court reconciled the pronouncements in Aichi and San Roque, holding that from December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010 which refers to the interregnum when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued until the date of promulgation of Aichi, taxpayer-claimants need not observe the stringent 120-day period; but before and after said window period, the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120-day period remained in force, viz.: Reconciling the pronouncements in the Aichi and San Roque cases, the rule must therefore, be that during the period December 10, 2003 (when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued) to October 6, 2010 (when the Aichi case was promulgated), taxpayers-claimants need not observe the 120-day period before it could file a judicial claim for refund of excess input VAT before the CTA. Before and after the aforementioned period (i.e, December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010), the observance of the 120-dav period is mandatory and jurisdictional to the filing of such claim.[39] (Emphases and underscoring supplied) Here, records show that CE Luzon's administrative and judicial claims were filed on November 30, 2006 and January 3, 2007, respectively, or during the period of effectivity of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 and, thus, fell within the window period stated in San | |||||
|
2015-06-29 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Respondents are deemed to have acquiesced to the foregoing findings when they failed to appeal the CA Decision. A party who does not appeal from a judgment can no longer seek the modification or reversal thereof.[56] Accordingly, the only issue left for this Court to determine is that which is now raised by petitioners – whether the CA erred in remanding this case to the court of origin for the determination of the necessary and useful expenses to be reimbursed to respondents pursuant to Articles 1678 and 546 of the Civil Code. | |||||