This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-08-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| documents, copies of which petitioners failed to attach or incorporate, to wit: (a) Motion to Dismiss dated 23 June 1998; (b) Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss dated 13 July 1998; (c) Reply dated 27 July 1998; (d) Rejoinder dated 31 August 1998; (e) Motion for Reconsideration dated 25 September 1998; and (f) Opposition dated 26 October 1998.[27]; Citing Santiago, Jr. v. Bautista,[28] private respondents maintain that such failure is fatal to petitioners� cause.[29] | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The above legal provision makes no distinctions nor does it establish exceptions. It directs the collection of the surcharge and interest at the stated rate upon any sum or sums due and unpaid after the dates prescribed in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act for the payment of the amounts due. The provision therefore is mandatory in case of delinquency. This is justified because the intention of the law is precisely to discourage delay in the payment of taxes due to the State and, in this sense, the surcharge and interest charged are not penal but compensatory in nature - they are compensation to the State for the delay in payment, or for the concomitant use of the funds by the taxpayer beyond the date he is supposed to have paid them to the State.[20] | |||||