Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Topic/Doctrine: Refund

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    This case involves a claim for refund of excise taxes paid by Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. on aviation fuel purchases in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that Silkair did not have the legal personality to file a claim for refund because excise tax is imposed on the manufacturer, in this case Petron Corporation, which paid the tax upon removal of fuel from its refinery. Silkair was neither the party liable for tax nor the party subject to tax. The Court also found that Silkair's argument that the ruling voids its tax exemption was without merit, as the prior case of Silkair v. Commissioner established that Silkair must submit a valid exemption certificate to claim exemption.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Topic/Doctrine: Refund

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    78 views2 pages
    This case involves a claim for refund of excise taxes paid by Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. on aviation fuel purchases in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that Silkair did not have the legal personality to file a claim for refund because excise tax is imposed on the manufacturer, in this case Petron Corporation, which paid the tax upon removal of fuel from its refinery. Silkair was neither the party liable for tax nor the party subject to tax. The Court also found that Silkair's argument that the ruling voids its tax exemption was without merit, as the prior case of Silkair v. Commissioner established that Silkair must submit a valid exemption certificate to claim exemption.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    SILKAIR.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a claim for refund of excise taxes paid by Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. on aviation fuel purchases in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that Silkair did not have the legal personality to file a claim for refund because excise tax is imposed on the manufacturer, in this case Petron Corporation, which paid the tax upon removal of fuel from its refinery. Silkair was neither the party liable for tax nor the party subject to tax. The Court also found that Silkair's argument that the ruling voids its tax exemption was without merit, as the prior case of Silkair v. Commissioner established that Silkair must submit a valid exemption certificate to claim exemption.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views2 pages

    Topic/Doctrine: Refund

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    This case involves a claim for refund of excise taxes paid by Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. on aviation fuel purchases in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that Silkair did not have the legal personality to file a claim for refund because excise tax is imposed on the manufacturer, in this case Petron Corporation, which paid the tax upon removal of fuel from its refinery. Silkair was neither the party liable for tax nor the party subject to tax. The Court also found that Silkair's argument that the ruling voids its tax exemption was without merit, as the prior case of Silkair v. Commissioner established that Silkair must submit a valid exemption certificate to claim exemption.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., V.

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE


    G.R. NO. 166482 JANUARY 25, 2012
    VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

    TOPIC/DOCTRINE: REFUND

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. is a foreign corporation duly licensed by the
    Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to do business in the Philippines as an on-
    line international carrier operating the Cebu-Singapore-Cebu and Davao-Singapore-
    Davao routes. In the course of its international flight operations, petitioner purchased
    aviation fuel from Petron Corporation (Petron) from July 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998,
    paying the excise taxes thereon in the sum of P5,007,043.39. The payment was
    advanced by Singapore Airlines, Ltd. on behalf of petitioner.

    On October 20, 1999, petitioner filed an administrative claim for refund in the amount of
    P5,007,043.39 representing excise taxes on the purchase of jet fuel from Petron, which
    it alleged to have been erroneously paid. The claim is based on Section 135 (a) and (b)
    of the 1997 Tax Code and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between the
    Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the Republic of
    Singapore.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not petitioner has the legal personality to file a claim for refund?

    HELD:

    NO.
    Excise taxes, which apply to articles manufactured or produced in the Philippines for
    domestic sale or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported into
    the Philippines, is basically an indirect tax. While the tax is directly levied upon the
    manufacturer/importer upon removal of the taxable goods from its place of production or
    from the customs custody, the tax, in reality, is actually passed on to the end consumer
    as part of the transfer value or selling price of the goods, sold, bartered or exchanged.
    In early cases, the Court ruled that for indirect taxes (such as valued-added tax or VAT),
    the proper party to question or seek a refund of the tax is the statutory taxpayer, the
    person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even when he shifts
    the burden thereof to another.

    The excise tax is due from the manufacturers of the petroleum products and is paid
    upon removal of the products from their refineries. Even before the aviation jet fuel is
    purchased from Petron, the excise tax is already paid by Petron. Petron, being the
    manufacturer, is the person subject to tax. In this case, Petron, which paid the excise
    tax upon removal of the products from its Bataan refinery, is the person liable for tax.
    Petitioner is neither a person liable for tax nor a person subject to tax. There is also
    no legal duty on the part of petitioner to pay the excise tax; hence, petitioner cannot be
    considered the taxpayer.

    Moreover, Petitioners contention that the CTA and CA rulings would put to naught the
    exemption granted under Section 135 (b) of the 1997 Tax Code and Article 4 of the Air
    Transport Agreement is not well-taken. Since the supplier herein involved is also Petron,
    the Courts pronouncement in the second Silkair case, relative to the contractual
    undertaking of petitioner to submit a valid exemption certificate for the purpose, is
    relevant.

    You might also like