Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WESTERN MINDANAO POWER CORPORATION v. CIR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 193253 2015-09-08	BUREAU OF CUSTOMS v. AGNES VST DEVANADERA PERALTA, J.
As the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari solely due to a procedural defect without resolving the issue of whether or not the Acting Secretary of Justice gravely abused her discretion in affirming the dismissal of the BOC's complaint-affidavit for lack of probable cause, the Court ought to reinstate the petition and refer it to the CTA for proper disposition. For one, as a highly specialized court specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax and customs cases,[46] the CTA is dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of revenue-related problems, and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject.[47] For another, the referral of the petition to the CTA is in line with the policy of hierarchy of courts in order to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of its docket.[48]
	GR No. 185115 2015-02-18	NORTHERN MINDANAO POWER CORPORATION v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
In addition, the issue of the requirement of imprinting the word "zero-rated" has already been settled by this Court in a number of cases. In Western Mindanao Power Corporation v. CIR,[14] we ruled: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, 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 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.
	GR No. 187485 2013-10-08	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
San Roque cited cases[7] in its Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration to support its position that retroactive application of the doctrine in the present case will violate San Roque's right to equal protection of the law. However, San Roque itself admits that the cited cases never mentioned the issue of premature or simultaneous filing, nor of compliance with the 120+30 day period requirement. We reiterate that "[a]ny issue, whether raised or not by the parties, but not passed upon by the Court, does not have any value as precedent."[8] Therefore, the cases cited by San Roque to bolster its claim against the application of the 120+30 day period requirement do not have any value as precedents in the present case.
	GR No. 175142 2013-07-22	BONIFACIO WATER CORPORATION v. CIR PERALTA, J.
From the foregoing, it is clear that petitioner must show satisfaction of all the documentary and evidentiary requirements before an administrative claim for refund or tax credit will be granted. Perforce, the taxpayer claiming the refund must comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements mandated by the Tax Code, as well as the revenue regulations implementing them.[14]