G.R. No. 210501 /G.R. No. 211294/G.R. No. 212490, March 15, 2021
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (FIRST DIVISION) AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 211294] THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF BATANGAS, PETITIONERS, VS. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 212490] PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (FIRST DIVISION), COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF BATANGAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) imported Alkylate, a blending component used to produce regulation-compliant petroleum products. From May 2010 to August 2011, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Authorities to Release Imported Goods (ATRIGs) stating Alkylate was not subject to excise tax. In April 2011, Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) tested Alkylate and certified it did not meet Philippine National Standards (PNS) for premium plus, premium, or regular gasoline. The Tariff Commission, in Ruling No. 11-056, and the Department of Energy (DOE) also opined that Alkylate was not a finished product but an intermediate or raw gasoline component. Despite these findings, the BIR later inserted a colatilla in ATRIGs reserving the right to collect excise taxes pending a final resolution. Subsequently, the BIR issued Document M-059-2012, ruling that Alkylate was subject to excise tax as a product similar to naphtha under Section 148(e) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and demanded payment of P1,384,721,993.00 from PSPC. PSPC filed an Amended Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which assumed jurisdiction and issued suspension orders against the tax collection. The CIR, BOC, and Collector of Customs challenged the CTA’s jurisdiction and actions, while PSPC assailed a later CTA resolution denying its motion for a suspension order.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as framed in the provided text of the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals over the controversy and its authority to issue suspension orders against the collection of excise taxes on PSPC’s Alkylate importations.

RULING

The provided text is a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Lazaro-Javier. It does not contain the main ruling of the Supreme Court. The opinion expresses agreement with the ponencia’s conclusion that the CTA has jurisdiction over the case but dissents on the issue of the CTA’s authority to issue suspension orders. The opinion argues that the CTA’s jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 1125 , as amended, is appellate and does not include the authority to issue injunctive writs like suspension orders in cases originating from the Bureau of Customs. It contends that the proper remedy for PSPC was to file an injunction suit in the Regional Trial Court. The opinion also states that the CTA En Banc correctly declined jurisdiction over the appeal of the BOC and the Collector. Furthermore, it finds that PSPC’s Urgent Verified Motion for a Suspension Order was correctly denied by the CTA First Division. The opinion concludes that the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed suspension orders for lack of jurisdiction.