CTA Case No. 750 (Resolution)

IU::!"U LIC' J1 'rJ ~ HIJ.IPP:INJ-. COUR'!o' OF TAX APPEALS MA"� 1i.J.A PI-IILIPPil\lE \ ALLBOA.tiD CORFORA!IOi , Petitioner; - ver sus - C. ! . A. CASE NO . 750 .JVJ\NUEL K. !ORH.ES, in his ca pac ity a s Administrator of the Motor Vehic les ; and/or !HE MOTOR VEHICLES OFFICE, Respondent . X~ - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - X RESOLUTION This is in connection with the respondent ' s motion to dismiss the petition for review on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject -matter. It is alleged in the petition that the Phil- ippine Wallboard Corporation is a domestic corpora- tion organized and exist ing under the laws of the Philippines; that it is engaged in the manufacture of tJLA' ~AN'I dt hardboards; that it was granted a certi- ficate of tax exemption by the Department of Finance on March 15, 1955; that it owns two {2) trucks , a Chevrolet delivery panel and Henschel delivery truck~ which are used in connection with its industry and registered with the Motor Vehicles Office; that it paid to the Motor Vehicles ffice registration fees in the amounts of 843 .00 and ~1,978 . 00 , respectively; t hat it made repeated repre sentations for exemption from the payment of motor vehicle registration fees and demands for the refund of the amounts already paid

RE.SJWTION - C. I . A. CASE 1'0 . 750 - 2- for the said vehicles; and that notwithstanding such representation s and demands, no action was taken by respondent Motor Vehicles Office . In its petition ~ petitioner prays for the re- fund by respondent of the amounts of ~843 . 00 and 1,978.00 allegedly paid as registration fees on its trucks, plus interests thereon, and attorney 's fees. The only i ssu e presented for our consideration is whether or not this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant caseo The jurisdiction of this Court is provided in Section 7 of Republic Act Noo 1125, which reads as follows: 11 SEC. 7. Jurisdiction.- The Court of Tax Appeals shall exerc ise exclusive appel - late jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided - (1) Decisions of the Collector of In- ternal Re venue in ca ses involving disputed assessments1 refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charge s, penalties im- posed in relation thereto , or other matters arising Under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law adminis- tered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (2) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties~ fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected; fines, forfeitures or other pen- alties imposed in relation thereto!� or other matters arising under �the customs aw or other law or part of law administ ered by the Bureau of Customs; and {3) Decisions of provincial or city Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases in- volving the assessment and taxation of real property or other matters arising under the Assessment Law, including rules and regula- tions relative thereto.fi

R OOLUTI N - C. LA. SE O. 750 - 3- The above uoted provision s c onfine the jurisdiction of thi s Court only to appeals f r om de c ision s of the Collector ( now Commissioner) of Internal evenuep the Co~nissioner of Customs and the provinc ial or c ity Boards of s sessment Appeals in those case s involving matters enumerated thereino he instant action seeks to c ompel the Adminis- trator of th Motor Vehicles Office to refund the motor vehicle registration fees paid by p titioner and to enjoin respondent from rurth r collecting re- gist ation fees on its delivery truc ks . Obviously 1 it is not an appeal from a dec ision of any of the tax of i c ials mentioned in e ction 7 of Republic Act Coo 1125, and , therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction ov r its subJect - matter. It is true that moto vehicle registration fees ar considered taxes (Calalang vs. Lor nzo & Villar , Go � i o. L- 6961~ June 17 1 1955; 51 Offo Gaz . 2859 1 2861 - 2862) , but public Act 1 o. 1125 creating this Court did not grant it JJlan et authority to decide any al,t and all tax disputes. (Ursal v. Court of Tax ppeals, et ~ . R . 1 os. L- 10123 ~ lvJ55, pril 26, 1957 1 53 O. Go L) FC HE 0 <.:DII\IG CO viD fiOr-.S, let this case be dismissed for lack o jurisdictione 1 o pronounce- m nt as to costs.~ Gd.DEH.~. 1 anila, July 5, 19W� �� H.Onfi ~ 1v1. UmAL ssociate Judge