Overview
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has dismissed SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc.’s petition seeking to reverse a P9.2 million deficiency value-added tax (VAT) assessment for 2013, issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). In a decision issued on October 9, 2025, the CTA ruled that the petition was filed beyond the deadline, depriving the tax court of jurisdiction to hear the case.
Facts of the Case
SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc. describes itself on its website as a supplier of building materials and decorative products. The dispute centers on a BIR Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) that SCG received on August 31, 2017, which levied a basic tax of P5,040,397.84 and interest totaling P4,175,935.09, amounting to a total deficiency VAT assessment of P9,216,332.93 for the year 2013.
Following the FDDA, SCG filed a Formal Request for Reconsideration on September 30, 2017, which was denied by the BIR on May 17, 2021. SCG then sought relief from the Court by filing a petition for review with the CTA on February 21, 2022, which the CTA received on February 22, 2022. SCG contended that it was not liable for the deficiency VAT and that the assessment based on undeclared sales from unaccounted inventory was void for failing to state the applicable law and the factual basis.
CTA’s Ruling on Jurisdiction and Timeliness
The CTA’s First Division held that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter because the petition had been belatedly filed. Even under SCG’s view that the BIR FDDA was received on January 20, 2022, the last day to file would have been February 19, 2022 (a Saturday). The deadline thus extended to February 21, 2022, a Monday. However, the petition was dispatched via a private courier (LBC) and was received by the court on February 22, 2022, which the CTA deemed untimely.
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on Supreme Court rulings stating that initiatory pleadings must be filed personally or via registered mail, and that filing via private courier is not a recognized mode. The Court noted that the filing date is determined by the actual receipt by the court, not the date of mailing. Consequently, even SCG’s claim that it dispatched the petition on February 21, 2022 could not salvage timeliness, as the Court only deemed the petition filed upon actual receipt on February 22, 2022.
The Court’s Reasoning and Implications
The 18-page decision, written by Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David with the concurrence of Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, emphasizes the importance of proper filing channels for initiatory pleadings in tax cases. The CTA stressed that the method of filing can determine the outcome of an assessment dispute and that failure to adhere to established filing procedures can foreclose a case on jurisdictional grounds.
For SCG Marketing Philippines, this ruling means that the 2013 VAT deficiency of P9,216,332.93 remains payable as assessed by the BIR, unless the decision is subject to further lawful remedies under Philippine tax procedure. The case underscores the precise rules governing filing deadlines and the limits of late submissions in tax appeals.
Context for Tax Practitioners and Businesses
Tax practitioners should note the CTA’s strict adherence to procedural timelines and recognized filing methods. While the extension of deadlines for non-working days is a standard consideration, the recognition that private courier submissions do not count as timely initiations reinforces the need to use permitted channels when challenging tax assessments. Businesses disputing VAT or other tax deficiencies must ensure that their petitions are filed within the prescribed period and through approved means, as failure to comply can bar relief regardless of the merits of the underlying dispute.
What’s Next?
As the CTA’s decision is final at the appellate level, SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc. may consider other channels if available under tax law, such as a reconsideration with the BIR if permitted, or potential remedies in higher courts only if new grounds emerge. Stakeholders should monitor any subsequent actions by both SCG and the BIR for developments related to 2013 VAT issues and any related rulings that could influence similar cases involving filing timeliness and method.
