Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 210836 2015-09-01	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR BERSAMIN, J.
In the same vein, I cannot subscribe to petitioner's postulation that the denial of its claim would result in serious adverse consequences on the supply of fuel to tax-exempt entities under Section 135(c) of the NIRC as oil companies would be unwilling to sell petroleum products to customers operating within the special economic zone. This is not only unsubstantiated but is also not a legal ground to grant petitioner's claim for tax refund or credit. It bears stressing that tax refunds, just like tax exemptions must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government.[52] Thus, unless there is a clear grant of tax exemption or refund in the law, the Court cannot grant petitioner's claim for tax refund or credit as this would constitute judicial legislation, which is not allowed.
	GR No. 188497 2014-02-19	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is noteworthy that the foregoing pronouncements were applied in two more Silkair cases[34] involving the same parties and the same cause of action but pertaining to different periods of taxation.
	GR No. 179115 2012-09-26	ASIA INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONEERS v. CIR PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Indirect taxes, like VAT and excise tax, are different from withholding taxes. To distinguish, in indirect taxes, the incidence of taxation falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it.[26] On the other hand, in case of withholding taxes, the incidence and burden of taxation fall on the same entity, the statutory taxpayer. The burden of taxation is not shifted to the withholding agent who merely collects, by withholding, the tax due from income payments to entities arising from certain transactions[27]and remits the same to the government. Due to this difference, the deficiency VAT and excise tax cannot be "deemed" as withholding taxes merely because they constitute indirect taxes. Moreover, records support the conclusion that AIA was assessed not as a withholding agent but, as the one directly liable for the said deficiency taxes.[28]
	GR No. 188497 2012-04-25	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Time and again, we have held that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which result to loss of revenue for the government. Upon the person claiming an exemption from tax payments rests the burden of justifying the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted,[29] it is never presumed[30] nor be allowed solely on the ground of equity.[31] These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken. Such exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government.[32]
	GR No. 166482 2012-01-25	SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the third Silkair case[20] decided last year, the Court called the attention to the consistent rulings in the previous two Silkair cases that petitioner as the purchaser and end-consumer of the aviation fuel is not the proper party to claim for refund of excise taxes paid thereon. The situation clearly called for the application of the doctrine, stare decisis et non quieta movere. Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled. Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue, as in the case at bar, should be decided in the same manner.[21] The Court thus finds no cogent reason to deviate from those previous rulings on the same issues herein raised.
	GR No. 181858 2010-11-24	KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
The Court has always decreed that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which represent a loss of revenue to the government. These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken. Such exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government.[49]