CTA denies plea of SCG Marketing to nullify BIR's P9.2-M tax assessment
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has denied the petition of SCG Marketing Philippines, Inc. which sought the reversal of the P9.2 million in deficiency value-added tax (VAT) for 2013 assessed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
In its Oct. 9, 2025 decision, the CTA ruled that SCG’s petition was belatedly filed and, thus, the tax court had no jurisdiction over the appeal.
The SCG, based on its website, is engaged in the supply of building materials and decorative products.
It received the BIR’s Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) on Aug. 31, 2017, which assessed it for P9,216,332.93 for basic tax of P5,040,397.84 and interest of P4,175,935.09 until Sept. 15, 2017.
It then filed a Formal Request for Reconsideration on Sept. 30, 2017 and sought the reversal of the FDDA. Its plea was denied by the BIR on May 17, 2021.
SCG then filed a petition for review before the CTA on Feb. 21, 2022, which was received by the tax court on Feb. 22, 2022. The firm argued that it is not liable to pay deficiency VAT assessment in the amount of P9,216,332.93.
It also told the CTA that the assessment of deficiency VAT arising from alleged undeclared sales from unaccounted inventory is void because it fails to state the law and facts on which it was based.
In resolving the petition, the CTA’s first division ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case since it was filed a day late.
The court said that even if it were to accept that SCG received the BIR’s final decision on Jan. 20, 2022, the petition was belatedly filed since the last day of filing should have been Feb. 19, 2022.
Since Feb. 19, 2022 was a Saturday, the deadline was extended to Feb. 21, 2022, a Monday, it also said.
The CTA said that SCG’s petition for review was filed through a courier on Feb. 21, 2022 and was received by the court on Feb. 22, 2022 together with the payment of filing and docket fees.
In resolving that SCG’s petition was belatedly filed, the tax court cited the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling that initiatory pleadings must be filed either personally or through registered mail,
It said that the SC had also ruled: “Filing through a private courier is not among the recognized modes for initiatory pleadings. Consequently, a pleading filed via private courier is treated as if sent by ordinary mail, in which case the date of actual receipt by the Court-not the date of mailing-is considered the date of filing, for purposes of determining timeliness.”
In dismissing SCG’s petition, the CTA ruled: "The Petition for Review, having been sent through LBC courier, is deemed filed only upon its actual receipt by the Court on Feb. 22, 2022. Accordingly, it was filed one day late. Even if petitioner's claim that it dispatched the Petition for Review on Feb. 21, 2022 were to be admitted, the filing remains untimely under the applicable rules. Thus, by petitioner's own account, the Petition for Review was belatedly filed."
The 18-page decision was written by Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David with the concurrence of Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena.