Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1952. December 21, 2020.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9104) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION , respondent . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : For resolution of the Court En Banc is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 29 June 2020) 1 filed via registered mail on July 15, 2020. The CIR's Motion seeks reconsideration of the Court En Banc 's Decision promulgated on June 29, 2020 2 (the "Assailed Decision") denying his Petition for Review for lack of merit. Petitioner moves for reconsideration of the Assailed Decision based on the ground that: 3 "THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF P56,762,554.12 REPRESENTING EXCISE TAXES IT PAID ON JET A-1 FUEL SOLD TO TAX-EXEMPT INTERNATIONAL AIR CARRIERS FOR THE PERIOD 12 AUGUST TO 31 DECEMBER 2013." In its Comment/Opposition [To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated July 15, 2020] 4 filed on September 18, 2020, respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation maintains that excise tax on petroleum products is essentially a tax on property, hence, the exemption expressly granted under Section 135 of the NIRC attaches to the petroleum products. HTcADC The Court En Banc resolves to deny the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. At the outset, it bears noting that petitioner's arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration are mere restatements of the arguments he raised in his previous pleadings. Needless to say, these matters had already been thoroughly discussed and resolved by the Court En Banc in the Assailed Decision. To put it bluntly, there is nothing in his Motion for Reconsideration that was not sufficiently passed upon by the Court En Banc in the Assailed Decision. Petitioner utterly failed to raise any new or substantial matter let alone any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of the Court En Banc 's findings. The Court En Banc stands by its ruling that respondent is entitled to the refund of duly substantiated excise taxes paid on petroleum products sold to international carriers from August 12, 2013 to December 31, 2013. As plainly adverted to in the Assailed Decision, such ruling finds jurisprudential mooring in the Supreme Court cases of Chevron Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 5 and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation . 6 In sum, the Court En Banc finds no plausible reason to deviate from its ruling in the Assailed Decision. CAIHTE WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 29 June 2020) is DENIED for utter lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Erlinda P. Uy, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, J. , is on leave. Footnotes 1. Court En Banc 's Docket, pp. 123-128. 2. Id. , pp. 100-116. 3. Id. , pp. 123-124. 4. Id. , pp. 134-143. 5. G.R. No. 210836, September 1, 2015. 6. G.R. No. 180402, February 10, 2016.