Overview of the Case
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has denied the petition filed by SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc., a company listed as a supplier of building materials and decorative products, seeking to reverse a P9.2 million deficiency value-added tax (VAT) assessment for the year 2013. The decision, issued on October 9, 2025, confirms that the tax court does not have jurisdiction over a belatedly filed appeal against the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) determination.
Background of the VAT Assessment
SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc. received the BIR’s Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) on August 31, 2017. The FDDA pegged a basic tax of P5,040,397.84 and interest amounting to P4,175,935.09, bringing the total deficiency VAT to P9,216,332.93 for the 2013 period. SCG subsequently filed a Formal Request for Reconsideration on September 30, 2017, asking for reversal of the FDDA. The BIR denied this request on May 17, 2021.
CTA Proceedings and Jurisdictional Issue
SCG then challenged the assessment by filing a Petition for Review with the CTA on February 21, 2022 (received February 22, 2022). SCG asserted that the deficiency VAT arising from alleged undeclared sales tied to unaccounted inventory was void due to a failure to state the proper law and facts underlying the assessment.
In its ruling, the CTA’s First Division held that it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was filed one day past the deadline. The court analyzed whether SCG received the BIR’s FDDA on January 20, 2022 or another date, and concluded that the last day for filing was February 19, 2022. Since February 19, 2022 was a Saturday, the filing deadline extended to February 21, 2022 (a Monday). However, SCG’s Petition for Review was couriered on February 21, 2022 and physically received by the CTA on February 22, 2022, together with filing and docket fees.
Rules on Initiatory Pleadings
The CTA relied on a Supreme Court ruling stating that initiatory pleadings must be filed personally or via registered mail. It reiterates that filing through a private courier is not among recognized modes for initiatory pleadings. Consequently, the court treated a pleading filed via private courier as if it were sent by ordinary mail, with the filing date determined by the date of actual receipt by the Court – not the mailing date.
Ruling and Rationale
Applying these standards, the CTA ruled that SCG’s Petition for Review filed through the LBC courier was deemed filed only upon actual receipt on February 22, 2022. The court concluded that this made the filing one day late and untimely under the applicable rules. Even if SCG argued that it dispatched the petition on February 21, 2022, the petition remained untimely under the law, as the date of actual receipt governs timeliness.
Implications for SCG Marketing
The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to filing deadlines in tax dispute proceedings. For SCG Marketing Philippines, the outcome means that the CTA will not review the deficiency VAT assessment for 2013. The case clarifies that, in similar disputes, substantial arguments or perceived procedural flaws do not override fixed statutory timelines, especially when the mode of filing is not among approved methods for initiatory pleadings.
What’s Next
SCG Marketing Philippines may explore other avenues for relief, including potential administrative or appellate remedies outside the CTA, if applicable under Philippine tax law. However, the current ruling stands as a decisive interpretation of filing deadlines and the limitations on using private couriers for initiating tax appeals.
Context for Tax Practitioners and Businesses
Tax practitioners and corporate entities should note the CTA’s emphasis on procedural precision. When contesting BIR assessments, it is critical to observe the prescribed modes of filing and the exact deadline, accounting for weekends and holidays. Preparing early and choosing the correct filing method can prevent similar disputes from reaching the level of a merits-based review.
The 18-page decision was authored by Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena.
