Overview: CTA denies SCG Marketing’s bid to overturn P9.2M VAT assessment
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has dismissed the petition filed by SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc. seeking to nullify a P9.2 million deficiency value-added tax (VAT) for the year 2013 assessed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). In its decision issued on October 9, 2025, the CTA ruled that SCG’s petition was belated, leaving the court without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Background: SCG Marketing’s VAT assessment
SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc., a company described on its website as engaged in supplying building materials and decorative products, received the BIR’s Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) on August 31, 2017. The FDDA assessed a basic tax of P5,040,397.84 and interest of P4,175,935.09, totaling P9,216,332.93 for 2013.
Following the FDDA, SCG 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. SCG then sought relief from the CTA, filing a petition for review on February 21, 2022 (received February 22, 2022).
The CTA’s ruling: timeliness and jurisdiction
The CTA’s First Division held that it lacked jurisdiction because the petition for review was belatedly filed. The court analyzed the filing timeline using the relevant rules for initiatory pleadings. Even accounting for SCG’s assertion that it received the FDDA on January 20, 2022, the deadline for filing would have been February 19, 2022.
Since February 19, 2022 fell on a Saturday, the deadline extended to February 21, 2022. The petition, however, was dispatched via a private courier (LBC) on February 21 and was received by the court on February 22, 2022, together with filing and docket fees. The CTA concluded that, under Supreme Court jurisprudence, initiatory pleadings must be filed personally or via registered mail; private courier filings are treated as if sent by ordinary mail, meaning the filing date is the date of actual receipt by the court.
Based on this interpretation, the petition was deemed filed on February 22, 2022—one day late. Even if the SCG claim of dispatch on February 21, 2022 were accepted, the filing remained untimely under applicable rules. Consequently, the CTA dismissed the petition for review for lack of timely filing.
What SCG argued and the court’s grounds
SCG asserted that the VAT assessment for 2013 was deficient and void because it did not sufficiently state the law and facts supporting the levy of the deficiency VAT arising from alleged undeclared sales tied to unaccounted inventory. The essence of SCG’s argument centered on challenging the validity and basis of the BIR’s assessment and asserting non-liability for the P9.2 million vat demand.
However, the CTA’s decision focused on procedural timeliness and jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the initiatory pleadings must be timely filed, and its ruling aligned with Supreme Court guidance that certain filing modes (like private courier) are not recognized for initiating appeals, with actual receipt by the court determining the filing date for timeliness purposes.
Implications and context
This ruling reinforces the importance of strict compliance with filing deadlines in tax disputes, particularly when using couriers to submit petitions. The decision thereby preserves the BIR assessment as valid and enforceable under the tax code, barring other technical defects that might be pursued on different grounds.
For SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc., this decision closes a chapter on the 2013 VAT dispute within the CTA’s jurisdictional boundaries, at least with respect to timely filing. The case underscores the ongoing tension between substantive tax arguments and procedural timeliness in the Philippine tax-litigation landscape.
Conclusion
With the CTA’s October 2025 ruling, SCG Marketing’s petition was dismissed for belated filing, leaving the P9,216,332.93 VAT assessment intact. The decision highlights the central role of proper filing channels and deadlines in tax appeals and their potential impact on challenging BIR determinations.
