G.R. No. 210501 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 1st Division

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) is engaged in manufacturing and distribution of petroleum products, importing alkylate as a raw material and blending component to comply with RA 8749 (Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999) and Philippine National Standards (PNS).
PSPC imported alkylate from January 2010 to June 2012; for which the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) initially issued Authorities to Release Imported Goods (ATRIGs) stating alkylate was not subject to excise tax.
The Bureau of Customs (BOC), through the Collector of Customs of the Port of Batangas, later required PSPC to pay P1,994,500,677.47 in deficiency excise taxes including interest and penalties for the subject period.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued Document No. M-059-2012 ruling that alkylate importations are subject to excise tax and VAT, which PSPC challenged before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

BIR began inserting a colatilla in the ATRIGs stating tax assessments were without prejudice to a final resolution on excise tax applicability.
Independent tests and opinions from the Tariff Commission and Department of Energy (DOE) found alkylate was an intermediate product, hence not subject to excise tax.
The BOC requested the CIR’s legal opinion, leading to Document No. M-059-2012 affirming subjectivity of alkylate to excise tax.
The Collector issued Customs Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 164-2012 directing the collection of excise taxes consistent with the ruling.
PSPC filed a Petition for Review with the CTA (Case No. 8535) contesting Document No. M-059-2012 and the Collector’s Demand Letter dated October 1, 2012.
Throughout the proceedings, PSPC sought suspension of tax collection for current and future alkylate importations; several motions for Suspension Orders and Temporary Restraining Orders were filed and resolved inconsistently by the CTA.
The CIR, BOC, and the Collector filed motions to dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction of the CTA and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, which were denied by the CTA.
The CTA En Banc denied due course to the petition of BOC and Collector on jurisdictional grounds regarding interlocutory orders.
Three petitions were filed before the Supreme Court:

G.R. No. 210501 by CIR assailing CTA decisions upholding jurisdiction and denying motions to dismiss.
G.R. No. 211294 by BOC and Collector challenging CTA En Banc’s denial of due course.
G.R. No. 212490 by PSPC challenging CTA’s denial of Suspension Order for subsequent and future alkylate importations.

The Supreme Court issued a TRO on July 7, 2014 enjoining imposition of excise taxes on incoming alkylate importations subject to bond; later confirmed, and subsequently motions to lift the TRO and for status quo ante order filed by government agencies.

Are the CIR, BOC, and the Collector guilty of forum shopping?
Does the CTA have jurisdiction over the subject matter of CTA Case No. 8535?

Does the CTA have jurisdiction to issue Suspension Orders on assessments related to subsequent and future alkylate importations, and to issue TRO/WPI against enforcing Document No. M-059-2012?
Does the CTA En Banc have jurisdiction over the BOC and Collector’s petition assailing the denial of their Omnibus Motion to Dismiss?