THE Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) denied for lack of merit the appeal of Duty Free Philippines Corp. of an earlier ruling dismissing its P142.9-million tax refund claim.
In a three-page resolution dated Nov. 8, the court’s special first division reiterated that both Duty Free and the Bureau of Internal Revenue are public entities, with any disputes subject to the jurisdiction of government lawyers.
“Thus, Sections 66, 67, and 68, Chapter 14, Book IV of Executive Order (EO) No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, and the doctrinal pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the PSALM (Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp.) case interpreting the said provisions, apply,” the court ruled.
“Such being the case, the subject dispute or claim falls under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Justice, and not of this Court,” it added.
The court on May 30 ruled that Duty Free is considered as an attached agency of the Department of Tourism under Republic Act 9593.
It also ruled that under EO 292, all disputes, claims and controversies between government agencies involving questions of law should be settled by the Secretary of Justice.
Under the EO the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is authorized to settle cases involving government offices to whom it acts as principal law office and cases involving both questions of law and fact. The Department of Justice will handle cases not falling under the OSG.
The court also ruled that it does not agree with the contention of Duty Free that the court can still entertain the case as it was filed before the Supreme Court promulgated the PSALM ruling.
The PSALM ruling found that under Presidential Decree No. 242, all disputes and claims solely between government agencies and offices must be settled by the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel depending on the issues and agencies involved.
The CTA said that the interpretation of the provisions of PD 242, which is now in EO 292, “constitutes as part thereof as of the date of its enactment, not at the date when the PSALM case was promulgated.
“Thus, at the onset of the instant case, this Court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain the same,” it said.
“Wherefore, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is denied for lack of merit,” it added.
Duty Free filed its petition for review on March 15, 2017 over the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s alleged inaction on its claim for the refund of allegedly erroneously assessed and collected value-added tax for 2015.
The decision was written by Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy and concurred in by Roman G. del Rosario. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas
