Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36130)
Facts:
La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36130 and L-36131, January 17, 1985, Supreme Court Second Division, Cuevas, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are a number of Philippine cigar and cigarette manufacturers (collectively, petitioners); respondents are the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and Hon. Misael P. Vera in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue.On August 22, 1967 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 30-67, directing the inspection and collection of inspection fees on (a) locally produced leaf and partially manufactured tobacco intended for domestic sale, factory use or export, (b) manufactured tobacco products described in Sec. 194(m) of the Tax Code intended for domestic sale, and (c) imported leaf and partially manufactured tobacco for domestic sale or factory use. Pursuant to that memorandum, respondent collected inspection fees from petitioners totaling P1,606,509.83: P199,632.19 (September 1967–April 1969) in CTA Case No. 2031 and P1,406,877.64 (September 1967–August 1969) in CTA Case No. 2048.
Petitioners, represented by the same counsel and urging identical legal grounds, filed separate refund claims with the CTA. CTA Case No. 2031 was submitted for summary judgment; on November 28, 1970 the CTA denied the refund claim. Petitioners moved to reopen for reception of evidence asserting that no inspections were actually made and no inspection labels were affixed; the CTA on September 28, 1971 granted reopening but denied reconsideration and ordered CTA Cases Nos. 2031 and 2048 to be heard jointly. After trial, the CTA on December 15, 1972 denied both claims.
Petitioners invoked the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, contesting (1) the legality of the collection and their entitlement to refund, (2) the validity and binding effect of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 30-67 (allegedly not promulgated by the Secretary of Finance as a regulation and not published in the Official Gazette), (3) the absence of actual inspection to justify the fees, and (4) the contention that Sec. 6(c) of the Tobacco Inspection Law (A...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 30-67 a valid and binding administrative issuance that required publication or promulgation as a regulation by the Secretary of Finance?
- Are petitioners entitled to a refund of inspection fees on the ground that no actual inspection was conducted or that inspection labels were not affixed?
- Does Sec. 6(c) of Act No. 2613, as amended by Republic Act No. 31, cover manufactured tobacco products such as cig...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)