This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| RR 7-95, which took effect on 1 January 1996, proceeds from the rule-making authority granted to the Secretary of Finance by the NIRC for the efficient enforcement of the same Tax Code and its amendments. In Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[18] we ruled that this provision is "reasonable and is in accord with the efficient collection of VAT from the covered sales of goods and services." Moreover, we have held in Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[19] that the subsequent incorporation of Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95 in Section 113 (B) (2) (c) of R.A. 9337 actually confirmed the validity of the imprinting requirement on VAT invoices or official receipts a case falling under the principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by reenactment. | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We have ruled in several cases[11] that the printing of the word "zero-rated" is required to be placed on VAT invoices or receipts covering zero-rated sales in order to be entitled to claim for tax credit or refund. In Panasonic v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[12] we held that the appearance of the word "zero-rated" on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT is actually paid. Absent such word, the government may be refunding taxes it did not collect. | |||||