Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

#1 SILKAIR V CIR - LAZATIN

TOPIC: TAX REFUND


DOCTRINE: The statutory taxpayer, the individual or
entity on whom the law imposes a tax, is the one
entitled to claim a refund. Although the tax burden is
shifted to another, this does not transform the latters
status into that of a statutory taxpayer.
FACTS:
1. Silkair purchased aviation fuel from Petron,
paying the excise taxes thereon.
2. Petitioner filed an administrative claim for
refund of the amount paid by it, alleging that
the same was erroneously paid.
3. Section 135 (a) and (b) of the 1997 Tax Code
provide that petroleum products sold to
international carriers of Philippine or foreign
registry on their use or consumption outside the
Philippines, and those exempt entities or
agencies covered by tax treaties, conventions,
and other international agreements for their use
or consumption, are exempt from excise tax.
4. CTA denied petitioners claim for refund, and CA
affirmed.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not Silkair is entitled to a tax refundNo

RATIO:
1. Silkair is not the entity directly liable for the
payment of the tax, hence, not the proper party
who should claim the refund of the excise taxes
claimed.
2. Excise taxes apply to articles manufactured or
produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or
consumption or for any other disposition, and to
things imported into the Philippines. While it is
directly levied upon the manufacturer/importer
upon removal of the taxable goods from its
place of production or from customs custody, it
is in reality passed on to the end consumer as
part of the transfer value or selling price of the
goods sold, bartered, or exchanged.
3. The proper party to seek a tax refund is the
statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax
is imposed by law, and who paid the same even
when he shifts the burden thereof to another.
4. Silkair, as the purchaser and end-consumer,
ultimately bears the tax burden but this does
not transform its status into a statutory
taxpayer.
5. In this case, it is Petron, not Silkair, who is
entitled to claim a tax refund.
DISPOSITIVE: Respondent won.

You might also like