The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified when the processing period begins for value-added tax (VAT) refund claims, updating existing rules to reflect changes in tax laws and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) policies.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC Third Division outlined the applicable processing periods under Section 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code, revising the framework previously explained in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dohle Shipmanagement Philippines Corp.

For VAT refund claims filed before 11 June 2014, the 120-day processing period begins once the taxpayer submits complete supporting documents or manifests that no additional documents will be filed. If the BIR does not notify the taxpayer of any deficiencies, the period starts upon submission. If additional documents are requested, the period begins after the taxpayer submits them or after the 30-day compliance period lapses.

For claims filed from 11 June 2014 to 31 December 2017, the 120-day period starts upon filing with complete supporting documents, with no subsequent submissions allowed. The Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law later shortened the processing period to 90 days for claims filed from 1 January 2018 onward, provided complete invoices, official receipts, and other required documents are submitted. Subsequent BIR issuances introduced standardized checklists and stricter completeness requirements, with incomplete applications no longer accepted for processing.

The clarification stemmed from a dispute involving Team Sual Corp. (TSC), which filed an administrative VAT refund claim for taxable year 2003 on 20 December 2004 before subsequently elevating the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued that the CTA lacked jurisdiction because TSC allegedly failed to submit complete documents.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CTA's ruling, holding that the rules applicable to claims filed before 11 June 2014 governed the case and recognizing that TSC had complied with the requirements under the prevailing regulations at the time.