Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9104. October 2, 2018.] PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION FABON-VICTORINO , J p : On July 27, 2018, the Court promulgated a Decision, 1 the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE ,the Petition for Review filed by Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation on July 24, 2015, is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED .Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation the amount of P56,762,554.12, representing excise taxes erroneously collected on its imported Jet A-1 fuel sold to international carriers for the period August 12, 2013 to December 31, 2013. SO ORDERED. Aggrieved, respondent filed the instant Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 27 July 2018) 2 on August 17, 2018, assailing the foregoing Decision on the following ground: Petitioner is not entitled to its entire claim for refund or tax credit of excise taxes in the amount of sixty-one million four hundred sixty-nine thousand ninety-four pesos and 24/100 (P61,469,094.24) allegedly paid on Jet A-1 fuel sold to tax-exempt international air carriers for the period August 12, 2013 to December 31, 2013. DHITCc In support of his motion ,respondent set forth the following arguments: I.emspSection 135 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, does not automatically exempt from excise tax petroleum products sold to international carriers and exempt entities and agencies. II.emspThere is no provision in the NIRC of 1997 which provides that petitioner is entitled to a refund or the issuance of tax credit certificate for excise taxes paid on imported Jet A-1 fuel sold to international air carriers. III.emspPetitioner is clearly asking for a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate which the law itself does not clearly provide. In its Comment/Opposition filed on September 17, 2018, petitioner submits that respondent's motion should be denied outright for being pro-forma .According to petitioner, the arguments raised by respondent in his motion are mere reiteration of the arguments raised in his Answer dated October 9, 2015, which the Court had already considered in the assailed Decision of July 27, 2018. Indeed, all the arguments raised by respondent in his motion were the very same flawed arguments raised in his Answer dated October 9, 2015 as well as in his Memorandum dated August 18, 2017, which had been thoroughly discussed and passed upon by the Court in the assailed Decision of July 27, 2018. There being no ground to deviate from the original determination on the merits of the case, respondent's motion should be denied. CAacTH WHEREFORE ,respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 27 July 2018) filed on August 17, 2018 is hereby DENIED ,for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, J. ,concurs. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 1065-1087. 2. Docket, pp. 1088-1095.