Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6741)
Facts:
Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-6741, January 31, 1956, Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc., is a common carrier operating TPU buses in Misamis Occidental and Northern Zamboanga; the respondent is the Collector of Internal Revenue. In 1941 a provincial revenue agent examined the freight‑receipt stubs of the petitioner and found that stubs for 1939–1940 remained but those for some earlier years were not preserved; by consulting conductors' daily reports the agent reconstructed the number of receipts issued from 1936 to 1940 and computed a total of 194,406 freight receipts for that five‑year period. Neither the available stubs nor the conductors' reports showed the value of the goods transported.
Relying on Sections 121 and 127 of the Revised Documentary Stamp Tax Regulations (Department of Finance, Sept. 16, 1924), the revenue agent assumed that where a bill of lading or receipt failed to state that a shipment was worth P5 or less, the shipment must be deemed to exceed P5, and assessed P0.04 documentary stamp tax per receipt, totaling P7,776.24; this amount was collected from the petitioner’s deposit in the Philippine National Bank. The petitioner demanded a refund; upon refusal it sued for recovery in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Occidental. The CFI rendered judgment for the petitioner. The Collector appealed to the Court of Appeals (C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction to decide the validity of the tax assessment in this case?
- Are the petitioner’s freight receipts "bills of lading or receipts" within the meaning of the documentary stamp tax law, and is Department of Finance Regulation No. 26 (Secs. 121, 127, 1924) valid in requiring that a receipt stating no value of P5 or less be presumed taxable?
- Is the transportation company liable to pay the documentary stamp tax assessed on freight receipts, or is the shipper (holder of the goods) the proper taxpayer?
- Was the collection (levy/dis...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)