COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 3027 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10352) Petitioner, Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM ANGELES, JJ. CORPORATION, Respondent. Promulgated: JUL 0 6 2026 X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for R econsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 11 March 2026), filed on March 25, 2026, assailing this Court's March 11 , 2026 Decision, with Comment/Opposition [On Petitioner' s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision promulgated 11 March 2026] from respondent. The Motion lacks merit. Petitioner argues that the Court En Bane erroneously granted excise tax refund in favor of respondent in the amount of Php82,640,348.00. In doing so, it reiterated its allegations: (1) that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and as such, there must be a clear grant of law authorizing such tax refund; (2) that there are only three instances whereby a taxpayer may claim for refund, which are: (i) erroneously or illegally assessed or collecte~

RESOIXTIO~ CTA EB No_ 3027 (CTA Case No. 10352) Page 2 of3 internal revenue taxes; (ii) penalties imposed without authority; and (iii) any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected; (3) that respondent being an importer of Jet A-1 fuel allegedly sold to international air carriers is liable to pay excise tax as soon as it imports the Jet A-1 fuel; (4) that the Court En Bane erroneously ruled that Section 135 ofthe National Internal Revenue Code. as amended, ("NIRC") exempts the article itself, which in this case is a petroleum product; (5) Indirect taxes like excise tax are paid for by the buyers as it forms part of the purchase price. Once respondent imports the Jet A-1 fuel, it instantly becomes liable to pay the excise tax. It may pass the burden to the subsequent buyer depending on whether or not such buyer is an exempt entity. Ifthe buyer is an exempt entity, respondent is duty bound to bear the burden of paying the excise tax. On the other hand, respondent counter-argues: (1) that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is a mere rehash of his previous arguments, which have already been resolved by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision; and (2) Under the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, the 2013 Chevron Case has already been overturned and therefore inapplicable in the instant case. The matters raised by petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration are rehashes of his arguments from his Petition for Review. These have consequently already been addressed and refuted in the Assailed Decision. Thus, there is no need to repeat Our discussions by covering these again. 1 FOR THESE REASONS, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated II March 2026) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated March 11,2026, is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIA ROfVE DESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice Sec Roque r. Cvmm;:s.s;vn vn Elecr;ons, G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February I0, 20 I0; see also Shangri-La International Hotel Management. Ltd. \'. Developers Group ofCompanies. Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22,2007: see also Urtigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564 (Resolution). March 4, 1996.

RESOLlTIO:\ CTA EB No. 3027 (CTA Case No. 10352) Page3of3 WE CONCUR: ~- ~;..........._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice . BACORRO-VILLENA ~ ~ f."~' ~-'-to4> MARIAN IVY~. REYEtFAJAfi.DO Associate Justice LA~~ID Associate Justice HENRY ~NGELES Associate Justice