Case Digest (G.R. No. 210501)
Facts:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals (First Division) and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. Nos. 210501, 211294, 212490, March 15, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) imported alkylate as a blending component for gasoline. Between May 2010 and August 2011 the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Authorities to Release Imported Goods (ATRIGs) indicating alkylate was not subject to excise tax; later the BIR began inserting a colatilla reserving its right to collect excise taxes depending on the Commissioner’s final position. Independent tests (BOC/SGS) and an opinion from the Department of Energy found alkylate to be an intermediate/blending component, not finished gasoline.
On June 29, 2012 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued Document No. M‑059‑2012 concluding that PSPC’s alkylate importations were subject to excise tax under Section 148(e) of the NIRC; the Commissioner of Customs (COC) issued CMC No. 164‑2012 implementing the CIR opinion; on October 1, 2012 the Collector of Customs (Collector) sent PSPC a Demand Letter for P1,994,500,677.47 in deficiency excise taxes (inclusive of interest/penalties) for importations from January 2010 to June 2012.
PSPC filed CTA Case No. 8535 (Amended Petition dated Aug. 24 / Oct. 5, 2012) challenging M‑059‑2012 as an invalid BIR ruling and attacking the October 1, 2012 Demand Letter; it sought suspension of collection and injunctive relief. The CTA initially denied, then on October 22, 2012 issued a Suspension Order limited to the amount in the Demand Letter; the CTA later issued additional Suspension Orders for certain shipments and denied other suspension motions for subsequent/importations not covered by the Amended Petition.
The BIR (CIR), the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Collectorfiled motions to dismiss and litigated jurisdictional defenses (including failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that M‑059‑2012 was an internal communication). The BOC and Collector sought review in the CTA En Banc (docketed CTA EB Case No. 1047) but the En Banc denied due course as the Division’s denial was interlocutory; the BOC and Collector elevated to this Court (G.R. No. 211294). The CIR separately filed certiorari before this Court assailing CTA denials of her motion to dismiss (G.R. No. 210501). PSPC also filed a certiorari petition challenging the CTA’s refusal to grant suspension orders for subsequent alkylate shipments (G.R. No. 212490).
This Court consolidated the three petitions (Resolution, July 7, 2014), granted PSPC a TRO enjoining imposition of excise taxes on incoming alkylate upon bond posting (bond posted; TRO confirmed July 30, 2014), and ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were the CIR, BOC, and the Collector guilty of forum shopping?
- Does the Court of Tax Appeals have jurisdiction over CTA Case No. 8535?
- Is Document No. M‑059‑2012 a BIR Ruling for purposes of jurisdiction?
- May the CTA entertain a direct challenge to Document No. M‑059‑2012 (or must PSPC first exhaust remedies before the Secretary of Finance)?
- Does the CTA have jurisdiction over the October 1, 2012 Demand Letter?
- Does the CTA have jurisdiction to issue Suspension Orders or grant TRO/WPI to enjoin collection or implementation of M‑059‑2012 with respect to subsequent and future alkylate importations?
- Did the CTA En Banc correctly deny due course to the BOC and ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)