Case Digest (G.R. No. 184398)
Facts:
Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010, First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is a Singapore corporation with a Philippine representative office in Cebu and an international carrier on the Singapore–Cebu–Singapore and Singapore–Cebu–Davao–Singapore routes. Respondent is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in his official capacity.On June 24, 2002, petitioner filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue an administrative claim seeking refund of P3,983,590.49 in excise taxes allegedly erroneously paid to Petron Corporation for aviation jet fuel purchased June–December 2000. Petitioner relied on Section 135(b) of the NIRC (1997) and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between the Philippines and Singapore, which it contended exempted fuel introduced for operation of its agreed services, subject to reciprocity.
Because the BIR did not act, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on June 27, 2002 (CTA Case No. 6491) to preserve the two‑year prescriptive period under Sec. 229, NIRC. The CTA First Division, in a July 27, 2006 Decision, found petitioner qualified for exemption in principle under Section 135(b) conditioned on reciprocity but denied relief on the ground that petitioner failed to prove it was authorized to operate in the Philippines for the relevant period; several exhibits (including the SEC Certificate of Registration and certain Civil Aeronautics Board documents) were not admitted because only photocopies had been offered. The First Division denied reconsideration in a January 17, 2007 Resolution.
Petitioner sought CTA En Banc review; the En Banc initially dismissed the petition on May 17, 2007 for failure to establish authority to appeal, but, upon reconsideration, reinstated the petition on September 19, 2007 and required respondent’s comment. The CTA En Banc, in a May 27, 2008 Decision, denied the petition for review—affirming the First Division’s dismissal for failure to prove authority to operate and further holding that petitioner was not the proper party to file the refund claim. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on September 5, 2008.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, challenging (1) whether it had substantially proven authority to operate in the Philippines during June–December 2000, and (2) whether it was the proper party to claim refund/tax credit of excise taxes. The CTA En Banc reco...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner substantially proved its authority to operate in the Philippines for June–December 2000.
- Whether petitioner is the proper party to claim refund or tax credit of excise taxes paid on av...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)