Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > November 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13728 November 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO. v. SILVERIO BLAQUERA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13728. November 30, 1962.]

PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO., Petitioner, v. SILVERIO BLAQUERA, as Collector of Internal Revenue, Respondent.

Chudian & Law Office for Petitioner.

Solicitor General and Special Atty. A. B. Afurong for Respondent.

Antonio T . Carrascoso, Jr. as Amicus Curiae.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; PERCENTAGE SALES TAX; METHOD OF COMPUTATION. — Where the amount billed to the customers is not the correct amount of tax, the requirement of General Circular No. 431 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is not fulfilled. In the case at bar, Petitioner, in the issuance of invoices to its customers, computed the 7% tax on the basis of the gross selling price without first deducting therefrom the cost of the raw materials used, while in its income tax returns it computed the 7% on the gross selling price minus the value of the raw materials. This method is not fair, and not in accordance with law and General Circulars Nos. 431 and 440. Petitioner should not be allowed to enrich itself at the expense of its customers, who were misled as to the amount of the tax that they had to pay.


D E C I S I O N


REGALA, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C. T. A. Case No. 324, dated January 10, 1958 upholding the legality of the assessment and demand issued by the respondent requiring the petitioner to pay the amount of P10,879.03 as deficiency sales tax and surcharge on the latter’s sales of its manufactured oxygen and acetylene gases during the period from 1951 to the second quarter of 1955, and from its resolution dated March 24, 1958 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration thereof.

Because of the importance of the question of law involved, Antonio T. Carrascoso, Jr. of the law firm of Ross, Selph & Carrascoso entered his appearance as attorney amicus curiae.

The facts of this case deemed pertinent to this appeal may be succinctly stated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of oxygen and acetylene gases. In a letter dated June 8, 1956, and received by petitioner on July 5, 1956, respondent assessed the former a deficiency sales tax and surcharge amounting to P10,879.03 covering the period from 1951 to the second quarter of 1955. Petitioner was also asked to pay the sum of P500.00 in addition to the sum of P10,879.03 if it desired to settle extrajudicially its violation of Sections 183 and 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code, penalized under section 209 of the same Code.

Petitioner sought a reconsideration of the assessment and, upon denial thereof, he appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals and raised the following issues: (1) whether or not the appeal to the Tax Court was filed within the statutory period of 30 days prescribed in section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, and (2) whether or not the deficiency assessment is in accordance with law.

The Court of Tax Appeals found that the petition for review was filed within the statutory period.

As to the second issue, the Tax Court was of the opinion that the assessment made by respondent, except with respect to the sum of P500.00 was in order. Costs were correspondingly pronounced against the petitioner.

In its appeal before this Court, petitioner contends that respondent’s procedure of computation in the questioned assessment is manifestly contrary to the provision of section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, as well as the procedure established by General Circular Nos. 431 and 440 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In effect, according to the petitioner, respondent’s procedure amounts to double computation of the percentage tax; and that furthermore, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals does not, in effect, give the petitioner the benefits of the provisions of General Circular No. 431 in that after the tax is billed as a separate item in the sales invoices, it is again added to the selling price from which total, the cost of raw materials is deducted.

The law, the application of which is involved, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 186. Percentage Tax on Sales of Other Articles. — There shall be levied, assessed, and collected once only on every original sale, barter, exchange, and similar transaction either for nominal or valuable considerations, intended to transfer ownership of, or title to, the articles not enumerated in sections one hundred and eighty-four and one hundred and eighty-five a tax equivalent to seven per centum of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the articles so sold, bartered, exchanged, or transferred, such tax to be paid by the manufacturer or producer, Provided, That where the articles subject to tax under this section are manufactured out of materials likewise subject to tax under this section and section one hundred and eighty-nine, the total cost of such materials as duly established, shall be deductible from the gross selling price or gross value in money of such manufactured articles; . . ." (Sec. 186, National Internal Revenue Code.)

The following B.I.R. Ruling and Illustration on how the seven (7) percentage tax provided in section 186 of the Revenue Code above quoted is assessed when the raw materials used in the manufacture of the product is deductible, is indeed enlightening:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Cost of raw materials should first be deducted before computing sales tax. — Where the amount intended to cover the sales tax is billed to the customer as a separate item, or the invoice covering the sale bears the notation "tax included", in order to arrive at the correct amount subject to the tax, the cost of raw materials (in cases where the cost of raw materials is deductible for purposes of the sales tax) should first be deducted from the gross selling price of the article sold before the latter is divided by, assuming that the article is taxable at 7%, 107%. (Ruling, BIR 105.02, Oct. 30, 1956; Int. Rev. Bull., Vol. I, No. 11.)

Illustration of deductibility of materials

used in the manufacture of article

Total landed cost of imported materials used P1,000

Add: 25% mark-up (assuming that they are classified

as ordinary articles under section 186 of the Tax

Code) P250

Total deductible cost of materials P1,250

======

Gross selling price of the article manufactured out of

above materials P2,000

Less: Cost of materials are computed above assuming

they were all used during the period P1,250

Balance subject to the sales tax P750

7% of P750 is P52.50 payable by the manufacturer.

(ARAÑAS, Annotations and Jurisprudence

on Business and Occupation Taxes, pp. 290-291.)

As correctly observed by the Tax Court, petitioner and respondent agree on the following figures, appearing on Exhibit "A" for petitioner, and Exhibit "1" for respondent:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Total selling price of oxygen and acetylene gases

from 1951 to the second quarter of 1955,

as indicated in the invoices, without the tax

but including the value of tax-paid imported

raw materials P1,793,732.97

Tax billed to customers on the basis of the gross

selling price of P1,793,732.97 P125,561.31

Gross amount billed to customers P1,919,294.28

Cost of imported raw materials used P334,465.74

7% tax actually paid by petitioner P102,227.78

This is how the lower court reached the amount of P10,879.03:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Deficiency sales tax P8,703.22

25% surcharge P2,175.81

—————

P10,879.03

It is not disputed that petitioner is subject to the percentage tax of 7% on its sale of oxygen and acetylene gases based on the "gross selling price or gross value in money of the articles so sold."cralaw virtua1aw library

The only controversy hinges on the method of computation that should be adopted on the basis of the so-called "gross selling price." In fact, petitioner says in its memorandum in lieu of oral argument that "the only question here at issue is whether or not the petitioner’s procedure is in accordance with the law and the provisions of General Circular No. 431 of the Collector of Internal Revenue."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be noted that the only difference between the two formulas or methods submitted by the parties is the inclusion of the tax billed by the petitioner to its customers.

A perusal of the above figures reveals that petitioner received more by way of tax from its customers than what it has actually paid to the Government, because in the issuance of invoices to its customers, petitioner computed the 7% tax on the basis of the gross selling price of P1,793,732.97 without first deducting therefrom the cost of the raw materials used, while in its income tax returns, the 7% was computed on the amount of P1,793,732.97 minus the value of the raw materials. This method of computation employed by petitioner is certainly not fair, and not in accordance with law and General Circulars Nos. 431 and 440 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Petitioner should not be allowed to enrich itself at the expenses of its customers who were misled as the amount of tax that they had to pay. On this point, the Tax Court aptly said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It does not sit well on the lips of petitioner to contest the legality of the assessment which is actually less than what it had collected from its customers, by way of sales tax. Certainly, it has never been the intention of the law and General Circulars Nos. 431 and 440 to permit taxpayers to collect more from their customers by way of tax and at the same time to pay to the government an amount which is even less than what the law provides.

"It occurred to Us that petitioner might be justly required to pay not the sum of P10,879.03, as assessed by respondent, but the sum of P23,333.53, which is the difference between the amount petitioner collected from its customers as tax and the amount already paid to the Government, on the ground that petitioner should not be allowed to enrich itself at the expense of its customers who were misled as to the amount of the tax that they had to pay. Upon a careful consideration of the matter, we can not find any legal justification for requiring a taxpayer to pay more than what the law requires. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

To ascertain the correct procedure, this Court looks into the provisions of General Circular No. 431 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Gross selling prices’ or ‘gross value in money’ of the articles sold, bartered, exchanged, or transferred, as the term is used in the aforecited sections of the National Internal Revenue Code, is the total amount of money or its equivalent which the purchaser pays to the vendor to receive or get the goods. However, if a manufacturer, producer, or importer, in fixing the gross selling price of an article sold by him, has included an amount intended to cover the sales tax in the gross selling price of articles, the sales tax shall be based on the gross selling price less the amount intended to cover the tax, if the same is billed to the purchaser as a separate item. To illustrate: In case an automobile dealer fixes the price of an automobile at P2,400.00 and charges an additional of P120 to cover the sales tax which he bills as a separate item on the sales invoice, the tax of 5% prescribed in section 185 of the Code (the rate of tax then in force) shall be imposed on P2,400."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to the above-quoted provisions of General Circular No. 431, to be excluded as part of the taxable gross selling price of the article, the sales tax should be billed as a separate item in the invoice issued to the customers. And of course, the "tax" mentioned in the General Circular No. 431 should be the correct amount of tax as rightly observed by the Tax Court. So, where the amount billed to the customers is not the correct amount of tax, the requirement of the circular is not fulfilled as in this case where the value of the raw materials used was not deducted from the total gross selling price of the oxygen and acetylene gases sold before billing the tax to the customers. In figures, the amount of P334,465.74 representing the cost of the raw materials should have been subtracted first from P1,793,732.97 before the 7% tax was imposed and charged to the customers. (BIR Ruling 105.02, Oct. 30, 1956; Int. Rev. Bull., Vol. I, No. 11.)

General Circular No. 440 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue provides that "unless billed to the purchaser as separate items in the invoice, the amount intended to cover the sale tax shall be considered as part of the gross selling price of the articles sold, and deduction thereof will not be allowed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Conformably to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and General Circulars Nos. 431 and 440 already heretofore reproduced, the computation employed by respondent is the correct one.

The computation suggested by the amicus curiae, like the one used by petitioner, is not in accordance with law and General Circulars Nos. 431 and 440 for the simple reason that it treated the tax charged to the customers as having been validly billed separately and hence, he did not consider it for purposes of deducting the cost of the raw materials.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, C.J., and Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-13342 November 28, 1962 - GO CHI GUN v. GO CHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17305 November 28, 1962 - DOMINADOR DANAN, ET AL. v. A. H. ASPILLERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17393 November 28, 1962 - ERNESTO PALMA, ET AL. v. JOSE MANDOCDOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17748 November 28, 1962 - IN RE: MANUEL YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17863 November 28, 1962 - MANUEL H. BARREDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17918 November 28, 1962 - TE ENG LING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18270 November 28, 1962 - SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC. and WER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18708 November 28, 1962 - HACIENDA ESPERANZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 289 November 29, 1962 - MERCEDES AGDOMA, ET AL. v. ISAIAS A. CELESTINO

  • G.R. No. L-11641 November 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO CATLI

  • G.R. No. L-16218 November 29, 1962 - ANTONIA BICERRA, ET AL. v. TOMASA TENEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16491 November 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMEON PAULIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16916 November 29, 1962 - FRANCISCO Q. DUQUE, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16947 November 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17054 November 29, 1962 - FRANCISCO LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17316 November 29, 1962 - UY CHIN HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17391 November 29, 1962 - IN RE: CHUNG HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17590 & L-17627 November 29, 1962 - PATRICIO MAGTIBAY v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17771 November 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO OÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-18372 November 29, 1962 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ESTEBAN ABAD

  • G.R. No. L-18397 November 29, 1962 - GERONIMO T. SUVA v. CECILIO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18400 November 29, 1962 - ALFREDO HILARIO v. MARCIANO D. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18402 November 29, 1962 - CANDIDO BUENA v. ELVIRA SAPNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18418-19 November 29, 1962 - MINDANAO MOTOR LINE, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18737 November 29, 1962 - FLORENCIO REDOBOS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19183 November 29, 1962 - FILOMENA RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13525 November 30, 1962 - FAR EAST INTERNATIONAL IMPORT, ET AL. v. NANKAI KOGYO CO., LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13728 November 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO. v. SILVERIO BLAQUERA

  • G.R. No. L-14329 November 30, 1962 - JOSE ARSENAL GO v. GO TUANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14613 November 30, 1962 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14789 November 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO MANJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15350 November 30, 1962 - MARIANO G. PINEDA, ET AL. v. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15422 November 30, 1962 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15554 November 30, 1962 - IN RE: YU KIU TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15659 November 30, 1962 - DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15882 November 30, 1962 - EULOGIA MINAY, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16084 November 30, 1962 - JOHN O. YU v. MAXIMO DE LARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16304 November 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16412 November 30, 1962 - ERNESTO A. BELEN v. CONRADO M. DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-16568 November 30, 1962 - GREGORIO DE GUZMAN v. GUILLERMO E. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16772 November 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN MONTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17115 November 30, 1962 - GUILLERMO B. GUEVARRA v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17152 November 30, 1962 - MINDANAO REALTY CORPORATION v. FILOMENO KINTANAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17210 November 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO DACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17414 November 30, 1962 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17430 November 30, 1962 - DOMINGO IMPERIAL, ET AL. v. MANILA TIMES PUBLISHING CO. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17531 November 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO ROGALES

  • G.R. No. L-17778 November 30, 1962 - IN RE: JESUS L. CARMELO v. ARMANDO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-18442 November 30, 1962 - RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18565 November 30, 1962 - CHINESE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COMPANY v. ESPERANZA P. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18926 November 30, 1962 - ANASTACIO P. PANGONTAO v. FLORES M. ALUNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18942 November 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19356 November 30, 1962 - CONSUELO V. CALO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19517 November 30, 1962 - CARIDAD CABARROGUIS v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19930-35 November 30, 1962 - ESTANISLAO ABAGA, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.