Atlas Consolidated Mining Development Corp. v. Court of Tax Appeals

THIRD DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 46718. June 7, 2000.] ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV'T. CORP. , petitioner , vs . COURT OF TAX APPEALS & COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondents . R E S O L U T I O N REYES , JR ., A. , J p : This is a petition for review of the Decision, dated 30 October 1997 of respondent Court of Tax Appeals, which denied the claims for refund of input value added taxes (VATs) corresponding to the second, third, and fourth quarters of 1990 filed by petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ACMDC). Petitioner ACMDC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and engaged in the business of mining, production, and sale of mineral products. It filed VAT returns with the BIR for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 1990 on 20 July 1990, 18 October 1990, and 20 January 1991, respectively. It filed claims for refund of input VATs or the issuance of tax credit certificates corresponding to the said quarters with the BIR on 21 April 1990, 2 November 1990, and 19 February 1991. Pending action by the BIR on its claims, petitioner filed three separate petitions for review with respondent Court of Tax Appeals on 20 July 1992, 9 October 1992, and 14 January 1993. Respondent Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the petitions for review of petitioner mainly on the ground that the prescriptive periods for filing the same have expired. Petitioner ACMDC now raises the following assignments of error: "A. The CTA erred in ruling that the instant judicial actions for input tax refund are barred by prescription; B. The CTA erred in upholding the validity of VAT Ruling Nos. 008-92 and 59-92 where it qualifies the VAT zero-rated nature of the sales to PASAR and Philphos; C. The CTA erred in denying new trial on the ground of absence of an affidavit of merit." In view of the ruling of respondent Court of Tax Appeals that petitioner ACMDC belatedly filed its petitions for review, it did not extensively discuss the substantive question of whether the latter is entitled to refund of input VATs or the issuance of tax credit certificates. Understandably, petitioner ACMDC did not treat in detail certain matters going into this issue, such as the evidence for its sales of gold, copper concentrates, and pyrite to buyers. Perhaps for the same reason, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not address the other two issues raised by petitioner ACMDC. Hence, to assist the Court in arriving at a just resolution of this case, the parties should be directed pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court to file memoranda summarizing their claims and defenses and including a fuller discussion of the issues. SIHCDA WHEREFORE, petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation and respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue are hereby ordered to file their respective memoranda within fifteen (15) days from notice. SO ORDERED. Abad Santos, Jr. and Brawner, JJ., concur.