G.R. No. 173594 February 6, 2008
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Lessons Applicable: Tax exemption is personal and direct
Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
- Petitioner Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., a foreign corp. which has a Philippine representative office, is an outline international air carrier
- Dec 19, 2001: Silkair filed with the BIR a written application for the refund of excise tax it paid on its purchases or jet fuels from Petron Corp. from Jan - June 2000
- Dec 26, 2001: not having been acted upon by the BIR, it filed a petition for review before the CTA
- CTA: denied its petition on the ground that the excise tax is imposed on Petron are manufacturer
- When the burden is shifted to Silkair, it is no longer a tax but added cost of goods purchased
- After changing counsel to Atty. Pastrana CTA En Banc dismissed it for being filed out of time.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the SC
HELD: Petition is denied.
NO
- Section 130 (A) (2) of the NIRC provides that "[u]nless otherwise specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production." Thus, Petron Corporation, not Silkair, is the statutory taxpayer which is entitled to claim a refund based on Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore.
- Even if Petron Corporation passed on to Silkair the burden of the tax, the additional amount billed to Silkair for jet fuel is not a tax but part of the price which Silkair had to pay as a purchaser
- Unlike in Maceda v. Macaraig Jr. where it expressly includes indirect taxes. Rule that tax exemptions are construed in strictissimi juris against taxpayer applies
