Valderral'A Lui'~=~.\ L:A:.Iu:Fac- Tu:T::I:Ti Col'Pa: ~y, et al. vs. Coufission3r of Intefl, et al.

VALDERRAl'A

LUI'~=)~ .\ l:A:.IU:FAC- Tu:t::I:ti COl'PA: ~Y, r:\TC. , Petitioner, - versus - COUFISSION3R OF INTEFL,' AL REVK DE, Respondent .

x ----- ---- --- - x

D E C I S I 0 N

C. T. A. CASE NO . 1546 Petitioner appealed fro~ the decision of respond - ent denying the former 1 s claim for refund ·or tax cred - it in ·the sum of P5 , 7ll o56 , representing 25% of the specific taxes paid on the gasoline, oils, diesel fuel and kerosene used in their logging operations from JuJy 1 to December 31 , 1962.

Pet itioner , a dooestic corporation organized in accordance with law, is a duly licensed forest conces- sionaire operating a logging concession at Ngan, Com- postela , Davao .

During the period under review, petitioner and T. H. Valderrama and Sons , Inc . purchased from Caltex (Phil o) Inc . fuel and lubricants on which specific taxes were paid o Pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No . 1435 in relation to Section 142 of the Revenue Code, petitioner and T. H. Valderrama and Sons, Inc . filed with respond- ent on April 24, 1963 a claim for refund or tax credit !' ?

j_

Diciales ~

CIA CASL We. 156 in the amount of $5,711.56 representing 255 of the specific taxes it paid on the abovestated petroleum eentea by rééjondent in his letter-decision of Septe:- ber 7, 196%, which wes received by petitioner on dcto- ber 17, 1964.

From seid decision, petitioner sent by registered mail on November 16, 1964 ite petition for review to thie Court.

the issues before us for resolution are:

2. See 30 at Se Eee oT ae $ial taa exemption geaated oy Section 5 of Act Ho. oe 1¥35 to those Sapee aaa Be cryin in the oy tga ted a five ye oe ie 4 og a yo ~ guise te tha said Act took sf- test} ma je whether or aot petitioner's action for refund nad already preseribed.

dnent the first issue, respondent eontenis that petitioner ic not the real party in laterest logaliy entitled to the refunt or tax eredit of the 25% of the epeeific taxes paid on the petroleun products since:

(1) the purchases of said petroleum products from Cal- tex (Phil.) Inc. were made by T. U. Velderrame and Jons, Tne. and not by petitioner, (2) thet the eldim for re-

DECiwicCn «

CTA CASE Ho. 1946 3 fund wes filed with respondent by petitioner and T. B.

tloner vies f filed the pres on the other band, petitiouer eleins thet it is the - veal pa entitled te the refund or tax eredlt os the records snow th , the ome whieh paid the aforeseié petroleum preducts.

(5% appoars fron the evidence on recoré that al- though the iavodees covering the purchases of the pe- troleam prodvets ia question were in the mame of T. M. Valderrama and Sous, ine., the findings in the investi-~ gation conducted by Sautiago L. Peraaates, Chief of the “leone, and Tobacco fex Sranch of the Burean of inter- al Revenue, Giselose that the purchases of petroleun prodacts whiea were asec anc consumed by petitioner were ali entered and recorded in the books of accounts of petitionsr; that the Soard of Directors of petition- or passed a resolution dated cetober 22, 1962 aathoris- ing Caltex (Pmil.) ine. to trausgfer the bills charged to Tf. i. ‘alderrama and Sons, Inc. to petitioner's se- eount; and that om Hareb 29, 1963 Caltex (vhi2.) Ine. issued to petitioner a certifies stateuwent of its pur- chases for the period July to Yecember 31, 1962 togeth- (PR? 3

DMISivA -

CTA CASE doe 19%6 % er with a certified senetule of specific tax saith?

To our mind, petitioner bas been able to show by clear and cenvincing evidence that it was actually the one whieh purchased ent useé seid petroleum proéucts We, therefore, holé tht petitioner is the resl party in interest entitled to claim for refund.

The second teoue herein is not sew te us. We have squarely decided this question in the two cases of Atlas Consolidated Mining ani Developsent Cerporetion vs. Comm, of Int. Kev., OF) Gases Woes, 1638 oad 1706, August 19, 1968, nud CMS Logging, Ime., vs. Comm. of Int. Sev., CT Cases Nox, 1569, 1674 anc 1804, august 30, 1969 wherein we held, .

It should be noted thet sections 2 and 2 therecol desl with provisions of the Nations] Internal “evenue Code on 8 ie taxes on oils, more - t ] they anend seaebions ite aad 1 of sata Goda, re pag ie ing the rate of specific taxcs on oils for fusl an! oe provides . Seetions 3 ané 5 of the Aet on the other haw’ do mot deal fens of the vee cote while the partial refund of spe- a

DACISIGN «

5 eifiea tax paid fer coils used and forest ta withkest limitetion -as to seetion ye of the opera- tive “eaeioe aaeriael fer ells ase in egricoiture and aviation into the rovision on the refund to miners end orest concesslonnirec.) Hote that Seetion J of the set to provide rePena fs that the precedure for r Tr ie rovided in a4 eracraphe 1

Section 142 the Aevenue

Coden efs applicable te refunds = miners aad forest Otherwise it would be defictent on this point since the provisions in Section 242 of ths Sevenue Code are not sGppesed te supplement the defi- Giencies La tas provision granting partial refund to miners and forest ate Pang gg Neediess to say tas express reference to section 1s2 of the Kevence Code cannot be ea- in tenor and te inelude not stated therein, like the limitation as to the opar. tive period of the refund.

The debutes ia ag in = nection with depublie ast 1435, the pertinent excerpt of wiich we are quetine hereunder, ere elucidating, forest voneessionasires, vith re- pode: Bey len a pa nay Boy ter agriculture anc aviation for —

Decision «

CTA CAGE Bo. 1546 & a limited period. 4s for the secon the reason advanced is that the miners am forest coneeesioneires, from the Very nmotare of their infustries, whien, parenthetieslly, is of permanent char- atter, do mot use public roads as cften as other users an¢ to place on them eqiial burden in the gseintenance of coads and bridges transcresses o7 the sense of fairness of Congress. Sased on fundamentally 4ifferent ressons .as thay ere, it is aot at all sarnrising that the privileges of one has differ- ant conditions from those of the other.

Finding 00 justifieble reason to deviate from the above rulings, we still adhere to tne sane.

Finally, on the icsue of prescription, respondent Gleims that granting argugado thet Seetion § of Sepublic act No, 1435 is without limit as te time, still peti- tioner is aot entitled te the refund of the entire amount of 95,711.56 since its court action for refund of seit amount correspoading to the peried frem July 1 to November 16, 1962 waa Pile? beyond the two~year stat~ utery period.

se agree with respomient in this respset. c have eons istentiy ners) following the doctrines laid down by the éupreme Ocurt la the cases cf Comm. of Int. Rev. ve. Insular Lamber Co, und Court of Tex Appesle, O. Re Mos. | torias Milling Co., Ine. on? Conrt of Tax Appeals, G. Rs Woo l~2eles, Jan. 3, 1963, / thet the Gloin for refund with the Comulssioner of Taternal Sevenve an’ with this

DRCIsSION «

CTA CASE Bon 1946

7 Court mast both be flied within two veers fron tha Gate of use of such oils an’ other fuels, otherwise such aetion would preseribe.) "ho petition for review in the instant case wes filed by potiticncr on Noven- ber 16, 1964 while the petroleum products were pur- chased and used b it in July to December 31, 1962. Going over the resorés of this casey we find that pe~ titioner did not specifically state the exact dates wen these petroleum produets were used hy it tut gerely stated in general terms that sald petroleum prod- ucts were used and consumed for the period July 1 to — December 31, 1962. Sowever, perusing over the delivery receipts ant invoices issaed hy Caltex (Phil.) Ine. to petitioner, we see taat the purchases of said petroleua products were wade alaost every two or three days. We Can, tiorafere, assume that such petroleus products were ased almost immediately after their purchase. Consider- ing all these, we held that petitioner's cleim for re- fund of the 258 of the specific taxes paid on said petroleum products used from July 1 te November 16, 1962, hat already prescribed.

We shall sow proceed te detarsine how much of the specific taxes paid fer the period November 17 to De- cember 31, 1962 is refundable. the records show that for the above-mentioned perlo¢, petitioner used 71,000

DECLISIGN «

) Liters of gasoline, 63,0ur liters of diesel of2 and 3,122.53 liters of luoricauts. sowever, for said rePied, respondent ‘isallowed 308 liters of gasoline and 29.5 liters of labriean.« (p. 172, B18 vee.) on the ground thet said petroleum products ware aed by private service stations, private persons and by vehicles ased by the management fer inspection ani supervision (p. 300, BIR rec.). | retitioner failed to adduce amy evidence to dteprove the eorrectness of re- spontent's disallowance, The determination of the Con- missioner of Internal ‘events is presumed eerrect and it behooves the taxpayer to rebut such presusp tion. (Tan Guan vs. OTA, et al., GR. No. L-23675, april 27, 1967.) lenee, after computation, we fini that pe- titioner should be refunded the ampunt of #1,462.14 broten down as follows:

Teteal parchases of petroleus roduets from Yovetber 17 December 31, 1962 ~ vuantity fate ef Awount of eFeauet Aid bers) See ten Spe Tox Jasoline 71,000 Less, Total disallew- enees for same period Total purchases subjeet to tux refund ...00.. 70,592 #9,08/1ts. #£5,655.36 diesel fuel 63,006 or 56.66/N.T. 1.00/4.T, 56.66 08845 Total d isallew- anees for same peried _ 29.29 to tax 3,093.28 0,.07/ite.

Total amount of apecific CER senses cvecssectve : e 2? . S

DROISION ~

CTA CASE No. 15946 wWHCREPURE, respontent is hereby ordered to re- fund or grant « tex oredit to petitioner’ the amount of 2,402.1 representing 25% of the specific taxes peid for the period from November 17 to Decenber 32, 1762. Witheut costs.

SO ORD“ZAWD,.

queszen City, Janunery 16, 1970.

he. FO RAYOR L. AVANCTHA \cseeclate Judge

WB COMCURs

eotat B. OMAR

Presiding Judge

"iesediate Judge