This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-03-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| To repeat, the assailed provisions of RR 2-98, as amended, do not modify or deviate from the text of Section 57(B). RR 2-98 merely implements the law by specifying what income is subject to CWT. It has been held that, where a statute does not require any particular procedure to be followed by an administrative agency, the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions.[77] Similarly, considering that the law uses the general term "income," the Secretary and CIR may specify the kinds of income the rules will apply to based on what is feasible. In addition, administrative rules and regulations ordinarily deserve to be given weight and respect by the courts[78] in view of the rule-making authority given to those who formulate them and their specific expertise in their respective fields. | |||||
|
2005-09-02 |
|||||
| Explaining the above conditions, this Court, in Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Court of Appeals,[10] held:"From the foregoing, it is clear that an entity claiming exemption from specific tax under Section 137, must prove that both the entity and the transferee are categorized as L-7 manufacturers since only an L-7 tobacco manufacturer has an L- invoice and an L- registry book. Here petitioner is engaged in the export, domestic sale and re-drying of tobacco leaves, activities which are designated as falling either under L-3R[11] or L-6 under Revenue Regulation No. 17-67. Thus, not being designated as L-7 tobacco manufacturer, petitioner cannot claim any exemption from payment of the specific tax on its stemmed-leaf tobacco. In other words, petitioner, as a non-L-7 tobacco dealer of stemmed-leaf tobacco is liable to pay the specific tax thereon. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to any refund of the specific taxes paid." | |||||