Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Procter & Gamble Asia Pte., Ltd.
This is a civil case, specifically a tax case, involving the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and Procter & Gamble Asia Pte., Ltd. (Procter & Gamble). The CIR petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc, which found in favor of Procter & Gamble regarding its Value-Added Tax (VAT) liability. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CTA's decision. The Supreme Court will not review factual issues in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and the CTA's factual findings are regarded as final, binding, and conclusive. The CIR failed to show any special reason or reversible error that would warrant the Supreme Court to review the CTA's factual findings.
ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255158. March 16, 2022-2021.]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,vs. PROCTER & GAMBLE ASIA PTE., LTD., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 16, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255158 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Procter & Gamble Asia PTE., LTD.) — The petition must fail.
Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) faults the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc for giving credence to documentary evidence which allegedly are hearsay evidence and should not have been admitted and given probative value. The CIR even proffered that the Value-Added Tax liability of respondent Procter & Gamble Asia Pte. Ltd. should have been deducted from its alleged refundable excess input taxes.
The Court, not being a trier of facts, will not take cognizance of factual issues of a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. More so considering that the issues at hand had already been passed upon and appreciated in full by the CTA, a special court exercising expertise on the subject of tax. Its factual findings are regarded as final, binding, and conclusive upon this Court. 1
In any event, petitioner failed to adduce any special reason or arguments that would otherwise impel the Court to review the factual findings of the CTA En Banc or recalibrate the evidence record. Nor has petitioner sufficiently shown that the CTA En Banc committed reversible error in rendering its assailed dispositions to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Amended Decision dated July 14, 2020 and Resolution dated January 5, 2021 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in CTA EB No. 1998 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See CIR v. Traders Royal Bank, 756 Phil. 175, 191-192 (2015), citing Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 635 Phil. 573, 585 (2010).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU