Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > February 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24769 February 25, 1967 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24769. February 25, 1967.]

VICTORIAS MILLING CO. INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-24779 February 25, 1967.]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, ET AL., Respondents.

L-24779.

Carlos B. Hilado for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for Respondents.

L-24769.

Solicitor General for Petitioner.

Carlos B. Hilado for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; TAXATION; INTERNAL REVENUE CODE; Secs. 183(b) and 190; ADVANCE SALES TAX. — Where sugar bags and materials were imported by a sugar milling company and subsequently used and disposed of by it as containers for the sugar sold, the same are not subject to advance sales tax, since Sec. 183(b) of the Internal Revenue Code exempts expressly from sales tax those "articles subject to tax under Sec. 189 of this Code." The payment by the milling company of the 2% tax imposed by section 189 on the gross value in money of all-sugar manufactured or milled by it, based on the market value or actual selling price of the article at the time it leaves the factory or mill warehouse, necessarily results in the exclusion from sales tax of the value of the bags in which the sugar is contained, there being no evidence that the price of the bags was not included, or that they are sold or charged separately from the sugar contained therein at the time of sale. Alternatively, if the price or market value of the sugar upon which the tax was paid by the sugar company did not include that of the bags, then the bags were not sold by it and, therefore, there was no sale of bags to be taxed, since no evidence exists on record that the sugar company received a separate consideration for such bags. The ruling in Victorias Milling Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-21171, January 31, 1967 where the issues tendered are identical to the case at bar is reiterated.

2. ID.; ID.; TAX REFUND WITHOUT INTEREST; ARBITRARINESS DEFINED. — Where sales tax had been collected by the revenue authorities but subsequently the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that the importation was exempt from such sales tax, the refund thereof should not bear interest, inasmuch as the mere fact of the reversal of a ruling previously rendered is not per se evidence of arbitrariness; neither is the fact that the administrative ruling is found by the courts not to be in accordance with law. Arbitrariness presupposes inexcusable or obstinate disregard of legal provisions which, in this case, we do not think exists, the Commissioner’s holding being, to some extent plausible on the strict letter of the law.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


From the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 1106 (Victorias Milling Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue), declaring that sugar bags and materials imported by the Victorias Milling Co. from September 7, 1959 to August 26, 1960, and subsequently used and disposed of by it as containers for the sugar sold, were not subject to advance sales tax and ordering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to refund the sum of P158, 269.61, without interest, both parties have appealed to this Court. The issues tendered are identical to those posed in Case G.R. No. L-21171, Victorias Milling Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, decided on January 31, 1967.

The appeal of the Revenue Commissioner (G.R. No. 24779) assails the decision of the Tax Court in rejecting his contention that the sugar bags and containers were imported for sale and, as such, were subject to the payment of advance sales tax under sections 183 (b) and 190 of the Internal Revenue Code. This contention was already overruled by this Court in the aforementioned case (G.R. No. L-21171) where we held that, since section 188 (d) of the Revenue Code exempts expressly from sales tax those "articles subject to tax under section 189 of this Code", the payment by the milling company of the 2% tax imposed by Section 189, on the gross value in money of all sugar manufactured or milled by it, based on the market value or actual selling price of the article at the time it leaves the factory or mill warehouse, necessarily results in the exclusion from sales tax of the value of the bags in which the sugar is contained, there being no evidence that the price of the bags was not included, or that it is charged or sold separately from that of the sugar contained therein at the time of the sale. And we reasoned out that, alternatively, if the price or market value of the sugar upon which the tax was paid by the sugar company did not include that of the bags, then the bags were not sold by it and, therefore, there was no sale of bags to be taxed, since no evidence exists on record that the sugar company received a separate consideration for such bags.

The argument of the Commissioner that the exemption of the price of sugar under section 189 of the Revenue Code can not include that of the bags or containers, because said section mentions only the former, but not the latter, does not take into account that there is no proof that the sugar company deducted the value of the bags or containers in reporting the market value or price of the sugar it sold, for purposes of the tax under section 189.

Upon the other hand, the Milling Company appealed from the Tax Court’s decision in Case G.R. No. L-24769, contending that the refund of the protested sales tax collected by the revenue authorities should have been ordered with payment of interest thereon, for the reason that in ruling that the bags and materials imported by said company the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was guilty of arbitrariness, since he had previously ruled that such importations were exempt from sales tax. As we have concluded in the preceding case G.R. No. L-21171, the mere fact of the reversal of a ruling previously rendered is not per se evidence of arbitrariness; neither is the fact that the administrative ruling is found by the courts not in accordance with law. Arbitrariness presupposes inexcusable or obstinate disregard of legal provisions, which, in this case, we do not think exists, the Commissioner’s holding being, to some extent, plausible on the strict letter of the law.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, in its CTA Case No. 1106, is affirmed. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.




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






February-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22533 February 9, 1967 - PLACIDO C. RAMOS, ET AL. v. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22729 February 9, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25999 February 9, 1967 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JUDGE AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18461 February 10, 1967 - NORTON & HARRISON CO., ET AL. v. NORTON & HARRISON CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19280 February 10, 1967 - EUGENIA CORPUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22065 February 10, 1967 - FRANCISCO ORTIZ v. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22568 February 10, 1967 - DIOSCORO V. ASTORGA v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22785, L-22826, L-22937 February 10, 1967 - CHAMBER OF TAXICAB SERVICES, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24415 February 10, 1967 - ANDRES MORALES v. MANUEL TUGUINAY

  • G.R. No. L-23895 February 16, 1967 - SEMENIANO TRAJANO v. MATEO B. INCISO

  • G.R. No. L-19485 February 17, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24253 February 17, 1967 - BRIGIDO CRISTINO v. LEON CAVITE

  • G.R. No. L-20525 February 18, 1967 - PETRONILA PINTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21039 February 18, 1967 - FLORENTINO PILAR v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21336 February 18, 1967 - VICENTE MENDOZA, ET AL. v. TIBURCIO DUAVE

  • G.R. No. L-22077 February 18, 1967 - ALFREDO K. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-22238 February 18, 1967 - CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM v. AGUSTIN ANTILLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22780 February 18, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24110 February 18, 1967 - LEONCIO BARRAMEDA v. CARMEN GONTANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25758 February 18, 1967 - JOAQUIN ORTEGA v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-25567 February 20, 1967 - CIRILO M. MANAOIS v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19777 February 20, 1967 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20819 February 21, 1967 - IN RE: GAN TSITUNG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26053 February 21, 1967 - CITY OF MANILA v. GERARDO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21012 February 25, 1967 - GLICERIO TINIO, ET AL. v. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20445 February 25, 1967 - ANICIA V. MERCED, ET AL. v. COLUMBINA VDA. DE MERCED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21696 February 25, 1967 - VISAYAN STEVEDORE TRANS. CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24769 February 25, 1967 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21805 February 25, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIDEL TAN

  • A.C. No. 389 February 28, 1967 - FLORA QUINGWA v. ARMANDO PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-17215 February 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CATALINO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-18759 February 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL LEDESMA

  • G.R. No. L-18707 February 28, 1967 - AGUSTIN O. CASEÑAS v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ VDA. DE ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20192 February 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF CRESENCIO V. MARTIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18930 February 28, 1967 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21120 February 28, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21894 February 28, 1967 - LOPE DESIATA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22465 February 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. ASCENCION P. OLARTE

  • G.R. No. L-22677 February 28, 1967 - PEDRO III FORTICH-CELDRAN, ET AL. v. IGNACIO A. CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23098 February 28, 1967 - DOMINGO T. JACINTO v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23827 February 28, 1967 - SANTIAGO A. SILVERIO v. PEDRO CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-24468 February 28, 1967 - ANTONIO K. BISNAR v. BRAULIO LAPASA

  • G.R. No. L-24477 February 28, 1967 - JOSE KATIGBAK v. RICARDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25044 February 28, 1967 - SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26816 February 28, 1967 - PABLO DE JESUS, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27191 February 28, 1967 - ADELAIDA TANEGA v. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.