SILKAIR versus - CIR

G.R. No. 184398

February 25, 21
FIRS! "I#ISI$N
FAC!S AS !$ %&!I!I$N&R
On June 24, 2002, Petitioner, a foreign corporation petitioner filed with the BIR an
administrative claim for the refund in excise taxes which it allegedl erroneousl paid on its
purchases of aviation !et fuel from "Petron#$ Petitioner used as %asis therefor a BIR Ruling
which declared that the petitioner&s 'ingapore()e%u('ingapore route is an international flight
% an international carrier and that the petroleum products purchased % the petitioner
should not %e su%!ect to excise taxes$
FAC!S AS !$ R&S%$N"&N!
'ince the BIR too* no action on petitioner&s claim for refund, petitioner sought !udicial
recourse and filed on June 2+, 2002, a petition for review with the ),-$ In a .ecision
/
dated
Jul 2+, 2000, the ),- denied the excise tax exemption for failure to present proof that it
was authori1ed to operate in the Philippines during the period material to the case due to the
non(admission of some of its exhi%its, which were merel photocopies$Petitioner elevated
the case %efore the ),- En Banc which .23I2. the same for lac* of merit$ ,he ),- held
that petitioner is not the proper part to file the instant claim for refund$
ISS'& RAIS&" () %&!I!I$N&R
Petitioner claims that it is the proper part to claim for refund since it is the entit which
actuall paid the excise taxes$
ISS'& RAIS&" () R&S%$N"&N!
Respondent argues that petitioner is not the proper part to file the instant claim for refund$
R'LING $F !*& S'%R&+& C$'R!
,he proper part to 4uestion, or claim a refund or tax credit of an indirect tax is the statutor
taxpaer, which is Petron in this case, as it is the compan on which the tax is imposed %
law and which paid the same even if the %urden thereof was shifted or passed on to another$
It %ears stressing that even if Petron shifted or passed on to petitioner the %urden of the tax,
the additional amount which petitioner paid is not a tax %ut a part of the purchase price which
it had to pa to o%tain the goods$
%&RS$NAL &N" N$!&S
,ime and again, we have held that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which
represent a loss of revenue to the government$ ,hese exemptions, therefore, must not rest
on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, %ut should %e granted onl % a clear and
une4uivocal provision of law on the %asis of language too plain to %e mista*en$
24
'uch
exemptions must %e strictl construed against the taxpaer, as taxes are the life%lood of the
government$