Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. Area II (NEECO II Area II) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

 Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. Area II (NEECO II Area II) v.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue  

G.R. No. 258101 (Resolution) 

April 19, 2022 

 

Sec. 228 of R.A. No. 8424 or the NIRC provides that the one hundred eighty(180)day period should be reckoned from the “submission of documents”.  

Whether or not the Petition for Review on Certiorari was timely filed within the 180-day period. 

 

Whether or not the Petition for Review on Certiorari was timely filed within the 180day period. 

 

No.  Sec. 228 of R.A. No. 8424 or the NIRC provides that the one hundred eighty (180)day period should be reckoned from the “submission of documents”, which in this case was on 19 September 2016. The statutory 180-day period lapsed on 18 March 2017. Petitioner had thirty (30) days or until 17 April 2017, to elevate the case to the CTA. However, it filed its Petition only on 02 June 2017, which is beyond the reglementary period provided by law. Section 3.14 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-13 , which implements Sec. 228 of the Tax Code, provides for alternative courses of action to the taxpayer upon its receipt of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment issued by the authorized representative of respondent Commissioner on Internal Revenue, including the option of elevating the protest to the respondent himself through a request for recommendation. However, nowhere in said provision does it provide that a fresh 180-day period is granted to the respondent to act on such administrative appeal. 

 

Nowhere in Section 3.1.4 of RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-13, does it provide that a fresh 180-day period is granted to the CIR to act on such administrative appeal. 

 

On July 22, 2016, the taxpayer filed its protest letter to the FLD and FAN. On September 19, 2016, the taxpayer submitted all the relevant documents to support its protest. On October 7, 2016, the taxpayer received the decision of the CIR’s representative denying its protest. On November 4, 2016, the taxpayer elevated the decision before the CIR. 

 

The taxpayer mistakenly counted a new period of 180 days from November 4, 2016 for the CIR to decide on the appealed decision of his authorized representative and that it had thirty (30) days reckoned from November 4, 2016 or until June 3, 2017, within which to file a Petition for Review with the CTA. The taxpayer filed its Petition for Review on June 2, 2017. 

 

Section 228 of the Tax Code unmistakably provides that the 180-day period should be reckoned from the “submission of documents”, which in this case was on 19 September 2016. Perforce, the statutory 180day period lapsed on 18 March 2017. From such point, taxpayer had 30 days, or until 17 April 2017, to elevate the case to the CTA. 

However, it filed its Petition only on 2 June 2017, which is beyond the reglementary period provided by the law. 

 

Notably, Section 3.1.4 of RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-13, which implements Section 228 of the Tax Code, provides for alternative courses of action to the taxpayer upon its receipt of the FDDA issued by the authorized representative of the Commissioner on Internal Revenue (CIR), including the option of elevating the protest to the CIR himself through a request for reconsideration. However, nowhere in said provision does it provide that a fresh 180-day period is granted to the CIR to act on such administrative appeal.