This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-03-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A simple reading of the abovequoted provision reveals that the taxpayer may appeal the denial or the inaction of the CIR only within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision denying the claim or the expiration of the 120-day period given to the CIR to decide the claim. Because the law is categorical in its language, there is no need for further interpretation by the courts and non-compliance with the provision cannot be justified.[20] As eloquently stated in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court and BF Homes, Inc.:[21] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| That a structure such as the subject property does not qualify as a machinery or equipment used for pollution control as contemplated under R.A. No. 7160 is evident from the adoption of an expanded definition of pollution control device in R.A. No. 7942. Under Section 3 (am) thereof, a pollution control device now also refers to "infrastructure" or "improvement," and not just to machinery or equipment. This new concept, however, cannot benefit respondent, for the assessment notice under review pertains to real property tax assessed prior to the amendment of Sec. 234 (e) of R.A. No. 7160 by Sec. 91 in relation to Sec. 3 (am) of R.A. No. 7942. It is settled that tax laws are prospective in application, unless expressly provided to apply retroactively.[62] R.A. No. 7942 does not provide for the retroactive application of its provisions. | |||||