Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 210836 2015-09-01	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR BERSAMIN, J.
However, while Section 135 of the NIRC is construed as a tax exemption in favor of the buyers, we have consistently ruled that they are not entitled to a refund or credit of the excise taxes paid on the petroleum products because they are not the statutory taxpayers.[56] If so, how could the international carriers and the tax-exempt entities under Section 135 of the NIRC, as buyers, benefit from such exemption? The answer is simple. Section 135 of the NIRC exempts them from paying excise taxes passed on by manufacturers, sellers, and importers to buyers of petroleum products. An excise tax, as we have often said, is an indirect tax wherein the tax liability falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as the consumer.[57] Thus, pursuant to Section 135 of the NIRC, manufacturers, sellers, and importers have no choice but to shoulder the burden of the excise tax as their buyers, the international carriers and the tax-exempt entities under the said provision, are exempt from paying excise tax on petroleum products.
	GR No. 210836 2015-09-01	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR BERSAMIN, J.
Petitioner sought reconsideration[29] but the CTA En Banc denied the same in a Resolution[30] dated January 7, 2014.
	GR No. 188497 2014-02-19	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the November 2008 Silkair ruling,[32] the Court reiterated:Section 129 of the NIRC provides that excise taxes refer to taxes imposed on specified goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported. The excise taxes are collected from manufacturers or producers before removal of the domestic products from the place of production. Although excise taxes can be considered as taxes on production, they are really taxes on property as they are imposed on certain specified goods.
	GR No. 166482 2012-01-25	SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Just a few months later, the decision in the second Silkair case[16] was promulgated, reiterating the rule that in the refund of indirect taxes such as excise taxes, the statutory taxpayer is the proper party who can claim the refund. We also clarified that petitioner Silkair, as the purchaser and end-consumer, ultimately bears the tax burden, but this does not transform its status into a statutory taxpayer.
	GR No. 180909 2011-01-19	EXXONMOBIL PETROLEUM v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
The issue presented is not novel. In a similar case involving the same parties, this Court has categorically ruled that "the proper party to question, or seek a refund of an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another." The Court added that "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." [87]
	GR No. 184398 2010-02-25	SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At the outset, it is important to note that on two separate occasions, this Court has already put to rest the issue of whether or not petitioner is the proper party to claim for the refund or tax credit of excise taxes it allegedly paid on its aviation fuel purchases.[17] In the earlier case of Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[18] involving the same parties and the same cause of action but pertaining to different periods of taxation, we have categorically held that Petron, not petitioner, is the proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect tax, to wit: The proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another. 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.