Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > March 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17830 March 30, 1963 - LA PAZ Y BUEN VIAJE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17830. March 30, 1963.]

LA PAZ Y BUEN VIAJE (LA DICHA CIGAR & CIGARETTES FACTORY), Petitioner, v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Blanco and Gadioma for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; SPECIFIC TAX ON CIGARS AND CIGARETTES; APPLICATION OF SECTION 19(a) OF REGULATION NO. 27 OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE IN RELATION TO PARAGRAPH (B) OF SECTION 137, TAX CODE. — Pursuant to Section 19(a) of Regulations No. 27 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (promulgated on March 1, 1923), the validity of which has not been contested, the basis for the determination of the rate of specific tax applicable on cigars and cigarettes is a sworn statement by the manufacturer showing the price charged by the same "without adding the internal revenue tax." Accordingly, for the manufacturer to be entitled to the application of the proviso of paragraph (b) of Section 137 of the Tax Code, it is necessary that the manufacturer’s net wholesale price, less the specific tax of P4.00 per thousand, be not more than P3.50 per thousand. Since petitioner’s net wholesale price, excluding said sum of P4.00, is P3.60 per thousand, it follows that the rate applicable is that of P6.00 per thousand, as provided in subdivision (2), paragraph (b) of said Section 137.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dismissing the claim of petitioner, La Paz y Buen Viaje (La Dicha Cigar & Cigarettes Factory), for the refund of P12,066.00, representing deficiency specific tax assessed and collected by respondent Collector (now Commissioner) of Internal Revenue.

It is not disputed that during the period from September 1949 to September 1950, petitioner — a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes in the City of Manila — had produced and sold 6,033,000 "largos" (king size) cigarettes, over 80 millimeters in length, at uniform wholesale price of P7.60 per thousand cigarettes, and paid P4.00 for every thousand thereof, by affixing, with the approval of an agent or representative of respondent herein, the corresponding internal revenue stamps on the packs of said products.

Upon investigation conducted by respondent’s agents, it was found, subsequently, that the specific tax for the aforementioned king size cigarettes was P6.00 per thousand, not P4.00 per thousand, as originally paid by petitioner herein. Consequently, a deficiency tax of P2.00 per thousand of said cigarettes, or the aggregate sum of P12,066.00 was assessed by respondent, who, by letter dated December 4, 1952, demanded from petitioner the payment of, among other items, the said sum of P12,066.00. Petitioner asked respondent to reconsider such action, but respondent refused to do so. An appeal sought to be taken by petitioner to the Court of Tax Appeals was dismissed by the latter for "lack of jurisdiction", upon the ground that the appeal had not been perfected within the reglementary period.

On September 26, 1958, petitioner paid, therefore, said sum of P12,066.00, which, in a letter dated July 20, 1959, it asked respondent to refund. Upon denial of this request by respondent, petitioner once more appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, which, in due course rendered the decision adverted to above.

This case hinges on the proper interpretation of Section 137 of the Tax Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 419, the pertinent part of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Specific tax on cigars and cigarettes. — On cigars and cigarettes there shall be collected the following taxes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(b) Cigarettes —

"(1) When the manufacturer’s or importer’s wholesale price, less the amount of the tax, is three pesos and fifty centavos or less per thousand, on each thousand two pesos.

"(2) When the manufacturer’s or importer’s wholesale price, less the amount of the tax, is more than three pesos and fifty centavos but not more than four pesos and fifty centavos per thousand, on each thousand, six pesos.

"(3) When the manufacturer’s or importer’s wholesale price, less the amount of the tax, exceeds four pesos and fifty centavos but not more than six pesos per thousand, on each thousand, eight pesos.

"(4) When the manufacturer’s of importer’s wholesale price, less the amount of the tax, exceeds six pesos per thousand, on each thousand, ten pesos.

x       x       x


And provided, further, That on all cigarettes which have been mechanically packed, or are more than eighty millimeters in length, a minimum tax of four pesos per thousand shall be collected, irrespective of whether the price at which such cigarettes are sold by the manufacturer or importer is three pesos and fifty centavos or less per thousand . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondent and the Court of Tax Appeals held that the provision applicable to petitioner herein is subdivision (2) of paragraph (b) of said Section 137, because, after deducting the sum of P4.00, paid by petitioner as specific tax, from the P7.60 per thousand it had charged and collected for said cigarettes, there results a balance of P3.60 per thousand of said cigarettes, the actual manufacturer’s wholesale therefor, which falls under said subdivision (2) of paragraph (b).

Upon the other hand, petitioner maintains that the above quoted proviso, in relation to subdivision (1) of said paragraph (b) should be applied to the aforementioned cigarettes, inasmuch as, deducting the sum of P6.00 per thousand assessed and collected by respondent, from the wholesale price of P7.60 charged and received by petitioner, the balance remaining in its hands is only P1.60 per thousand, which falls under said proviso of paragraph (b).

We cannot sustain petitioner’s contention. Section 19(a) of Regulations No. 27 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (promulgated on March 1, 1923), which were in force, at the time of the removal of the cigarettes above referred to, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Classification of cigars or cigarettes and reclassification due to increase or decrease in price. — The tax on cigars or cigarettes is assessed on the manufacturer’s wholesale price. Manufacturers shall file sworn statements with the Collector of Internal Revenue showing the maximum prices without adding the internal revenue tax of the different brands of cigars or cigarettes manufactured by them and the tax must be paid on the basis of the prices so submitted. Manufacturers desiring to reclassify cigars or cigarettes on account of an increase or decrease in prices shall request permission in writing giving reasons for the change. If the Collector of Internal Revenue grants authority for a reclassification of any lot or brand of cigars again be totalled and the manufacturer will continue his entries in the corresponding register book A. If, for instance, cigars or cigarettes are to be changed from the P2.00 to P4.00 class, or from P1.20 to P1.60, the two columns affected will be totalled and deductions or additions made thereto, accordingly, after which they will again be totalled and the manufacturer will continue his entries immediately under the new totals.’ (Emphasis supplied: 21 Off. Gaz., page 460.)

Pursuant to this Rule, the validity of which has not been contested, the basis for the determination of the rate of specific tax applicable on cigars and cigarettes is a sworn statement by the manufacturer showing the price charged by the same "without adding the internal revenue tax." Accordingly, for the manufacturer to be entitled to the application of the proviso of said paragraph (b) of Section 137, it is necessary that the manufacturer’s net wholesale price, less the specific tax of P4.00 per thousand, be not more than P3.50 per thousand. Since the net wholesale price of petitioner herein, excluding said sum of P4.00, is P3.60 per thousand, it follows necessarily that the rate applicable is that of P6.00 per thousand, as provided in subdivision (2), paragraph (b) of said Section 137.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Barrera, 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






March-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963 - IN RE: TELESFORO A. DIAO v. SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-14110 March 29, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEFINA N. SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-15655 March 29, 1963 - LUDOVICO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. AMADO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-18556 March 29, 1963 - JUAN ANDAN, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18834 March 29, 1963 - CASIANO CANO v. JULIA MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13542 March 30, 1963 - IRENEO CUCHAPIN v. VIRGINIA LOZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14698 March 30, 1963 - JOSE E. COLLADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15059 March 30, 1963 - JUAN ALQUIGUE v. FORTUNATO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15464 and L-16255 March 30, 1963 - FLASH TAXICAB CO., INC. v. ALBERTO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15956 March 30, 1963 - TE TAY SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16013 March 30, 1963 - JUSTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16869 March 30, 1963 - GENARO NATAÑO v. JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17090 March 30, 1963 - PIERRE L. SALAS v. CIRIO H. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17192 March 30, 1963 - HONORIO M. BARRIOS v. CARLOS A. GO THONG & COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17281 March 30, 1963 - VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17328 March 30, 1963 - CONRADO B. UICHANCO v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17523 March 30, 1963 - RAMON TAPALES v. PRESIDENT and BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-17635 March 30, 1963 - EDUARDO SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF ASINGAN

  • G.R. No. L-17830 March 30, 1963 - LA PAZ Y BUEN VIAJE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-18007 March 30, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO H. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18146 March 30, 1963 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. MAMERTO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. L-18287 March 30, 1963 - TRINIDAD J. FRANCISCO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-18438 March 30, 1963 - CONRADO PAEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18567 March 30, 1963 - CAPITAL INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. MARIO DELGADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18710 March 30, 1963 - NATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18747 March 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASTOR SUPNAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18748 March 30, 1963 - LUCENA VALENZUELA v. FELICISIMO BALAYO

  • G.R. No. L-18800 March 30, 1963 - VICTORIA BISCUIT CO., INC. v. JORGE BENEDICTO

  • G.R. No. L-18819 March 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO PLAZA

  • G.R. No. L-18878 March 30, 1963 - CELSO A. FERNANDEZ v. CECILIO LEDESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19527 March 30, 1963 - RICARDO PRESBITERO v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19532 March 30, 1963 - RUBEN L. VALERO, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20260 March 30, 1963 - EDILBERTO CHAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.