Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PANAY POWER CORPORATION v. CIR

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 200841-42 2015-08-26	CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY v. CIR PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
This notwithstanding, the Court is not wont to instantly grant CE Luzon's refund claim in the amount of P20,546,004.87 which allegedly represented unutilized input VAT for the year 2005. This is because the determination of CE Luzon's entitlement to such claim, if any, would necessarily involve factual issues and, thus, are evidentiary in nature which are beyond the pale of judicial review under a Rule 45 petition where only pure questions of law, not of fact, may be resolved.[40] Accordingly, the prudent course of action is to remand the case to the CTA En Banc for resolution on the merits, consistent with the Court's ruling in Panay Power Corporation v. CIR.[41]
	GR No. 203774 2015-03-11	CARGILL PHILIPPINES v. CIR PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
This notwithstanding, the Court finds that Cargill's second refund claim in the amount of P22,194,446.67 which allegedly represented unutilized input VAT covering the period March 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004 should not be instantly granted. This is because the determination of Cargill's entitlement to such claim, if any, would necessarily involve factual issues and, thus, are evidentiary in nature which are beyond the pale of judicial review under a Rule 45 petition where only pure questions of law, not of fact, may be resolved.[43] Accordingly, the prudent course of action is to remand CTA Case No. 7262 to the CTA Division for resolution on the merits, consistent with the Court's ruling in Panay Power Corporation v. CIR.[44]