For lack of jurisdiction, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has dismissed the petition filed by Manulife Data Services, Inc. which sought from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) P127.4 million tax refund for its alleged excess and unutilized value added tax (VAT) in 2019.

Manulife filed its application for refund of its alleged excess and unutilized VAT for 2019 amounting to P127,437,097.24 on May 10, 2021. On July 30, 2021, the BIR denied the claim. The denial was received by Manulife on Oct. 7, 2021.

On Nov. 8, 2021, Manulife filed a petition for review before the CTA. It argued that it paid inplut VAT in 2019 for its domestic purchases of goods and services. It also argued that its excess and unutilized input VAT is directly attributable to its zero-rated sales for 2019, and was not applied against output tax in the same or succeeding quarters.

The BIR, on the other hand, said that Manulife was not entitled to the refund because "claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake the nature of exemption from taxation and as such, they are looked upon with disfavor."

In a decision issued last August 2, the CTA's second division dismissed Manulife's petition for failure of the firm to file timely its judicial claim.

The CTA said that counting 90 days from Manulife's submission of its administrative claim on May 10, 2021, the BIR had until Aug. 8, 2021 to act on it. In the event of inaction within the 90-day period, Manulife had 30 days from the expiration to file its judicial claim or until Sept. 7, 2021.

"Considering that no decision was communicated to the taxpayer within the 90-day period, there is no decision appealable to this Court to speak of. Any decision belatedly received by petitioner is not binding upon it," the CTA said.

"Petitioner (Manulife), then, should have construed the non-receipt of the decision within the 90-day period as inaction on the part of respondent (BIR) and reckoned the 30-day period to file its judicial claim from Aug. 8, 2021, and not from the receipt on Oct. 7, 2021, which was already beyond the 90+30 day period," it said.

The CTA rules: "Given the foregoing, the filing of the Petition or Review on Nov. 8, 2021 was beyond the thirty (30)-day mandatory and jurisdictional period. The Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioner's case. Wherefore, the instant Petition for Review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."

The 11-page decision was written by Associate Justice Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro.