G.R. No. 260912 - Department of Energy vs. Court of Tax Appeals

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) dated December 7, 2018, assessing deficiency excise taxes amounting to ₱18,378,759,473.44 against the Department of Energy (DOE).
The BIR subsequently issued a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD/FAN) on the same amount, which the DOE claims it did not properly receive.
The DOE contested the assessment, arguing it is not liable under Section 130(A)(1) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) because it is neither the owner, lessee, concessionaire, nor operator of the mining claim, but merely grants mining rights on behalf of the State.
DOE also argued that the transactions involved condensates, classified as liquefied natural gas, exempt from excise tax under BIR Revenue Regulations No. 1-2018.

BIR declared the assessment final on July 17, 2019, citing DOE's failure to file a protest within 30 days.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued Warrants of Distraint and/or Levy and Garnishment on September 19, 2019.
DOE filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division questioning the warrants and the jurisdiction of the CTA.
The CTA Second Division dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing the precedent in Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (PSALM v. CIR), holding this to be an intra-governmental dispute.
The CTA En Banc affirmed the dismissal, and DOE’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
DOE filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CTA’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

DOE asserts that the CTA has jurisdiction over tax disputes under Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, which should prevail over Presidential Decree (PD) No. 242.
DOE argues that PSALM v. CIR involved a different factual scenario (dispute arising from a contract) and should not apply here.
DOE claims that not all controversies among government agencies fall under PD No. 242.
DOE emphasizes the CTA’s expertise in tax matters, advocating for its jurisdiction.

Whether the Court of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction to hear and decide the tax dispute between the Department of Energy and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Whether PD No. 242, prescribing the administrative settlement of disputes among government entities, applies to tax disputes among government agencies, thus excluding jurisdiction of the CTA.
Whether the doctrine in PSALM v. CIR, limiting CTA jurisdiction in intra-governmental tax disputes and vesting jurisdiction in the Secretary of Justice or Solicitor General under PD No. 242, governs this case.
Whether RA No. 1125 and the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) prevail over PD No. 242 in determining jurisdiction over tax disputes involving government agencies.