THE COURT of Tax Appeals (CTA) denied Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.’s petition for a P43-million tax refund on excise taxes for Jet A-1 gasoline bought to tax-exempt worldwide air carriers, citing lack of proof.
The tax court docket’s Third Division, in a 15-page choice, stated the oil firm did not show cost of excise tax for the imported Jet A-1 gasoline.
Whereas Shell offered particulars of the alleged importations and excise tax funds, the Court docket famous the absence of supporting documentation.
The tribunal additionally emphasised the necessity for concrete proof in tax refund circumstances, particularly concerning the cost or assortment of the refunded tax.
It cited a Supreme Court docket ruling in Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Inside Income to underscore that claims for tax refunds are handled as claims for exemption, requiring strict scrutiny and proof of compliance with the situations for a refund.
“In claims for a refund, it’s essential to indicate the cost or assortment of the quantity of tax being refunded, not just for the aim of figuring out whether or not there was a well timed submitting of the executive and judicial claims… however extra importantly, it’s as a result of a declare for refund should all the time be premised on the truth that the stated quantity went to the federal government coffers,” Affiliate Justice Catherine T. Manahan stated within the ruling.
In denying the plea, the tribunal additionally emphasised the timeliness of the tax claims underneath the 1997 Nationwide Inside Income Code.
“Inside two (2) years from the date of cost of the tax, the claimant should first file an administrative declare with [the] respondent (Bureau of Inside Income) earlier than submitting a judicial declare with the courts of regulation,” it stated.
The CTA confused the necessary and jurisdictional nature of this timeline, highlighting its incapacity to contemplate claims filed exterior this timeframe, no matter subsequent developments.
The oil firm stated that photocopies needs to be admissible with out comparability to originals, with out objection to their authenticity.
Nevertheless, the tribunal rejected this, declaring that the BIR had agreed to the admission of the reveals provided that they had been in contrast with the originals.
Pilipinas Shell later filed a Tender of Excluded Proof, however the court docket clarified that this process is supposed for appeals and doesn’t change its conclusion concerning the shortage of proof of cost. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
