Title
Collector of Internal Revenue vs. La Tondena, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-10431
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1962
La Tondena contested BIR's tax demand on alcohol lost to evaporation during rectification. The Supreme Court ruled in favor, exempting taxes under Republic Act No. 592, affirming CTA's jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10431)

Background of the Case

Since 1929, La Tondena has been procuring alcohol from Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Central and Central Azucarera Don Pedro. The transfer of alcohol from these central sources to La Tondena's distillery was done under joint bonds, with the acknowledgment and approval of the Collector of Internal Revenue. Historically, La Tondena was granted an allowance not exceeding 7% for evaporation losses in alcohol during the rectification process, which was crucial to maintaining the quality of their products.

Tax Assessment and Appeals Process

On May 8, 1954, the Collector of Internal Revenue issued a demand for the payment of specific taxes amounting to P154,663.10, covering alcohol losses from evaporation between June 7, 1950, and February 7, 1954. La Tondena requested extensions to respond to this assessment, and upon submitting their protest on August 6, 1954, they were met with refusal from the Collector to reconsider. Following administrative appeals, La Tondena sought relief from the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 18, 1955, after exhausting their administrative remedies.

Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals

The CTA rendered judgment on December 7, 1955, modifying the Collector's assessment and ordering La Tondena to pay only P672.15, exempting them from the majority of the assessed specific taxes based on the provisions of Republic Act No. 592, which had amended tax liabilities regarding alcohol.

Arguments on Appeal

The Collector of Internal Revenue appealed the CTA's decision on two grounds: the exemption from specific tax payment for alcohol lost during rectification procedures and the assertion that the CTA lacked jurisdiction due to the untimeliness of La Tondena's appeal. The Petitioner contended that the specific tax applied universally to alcohol, regardless of the loss incurred during manufacturing.

Interpretation of Tax Laws

Section 133 of the Tax Code, as it stood before the implementation of Republic Act No. 592, allowed for broad tax applicability on distilled spirits. However, post-amendment, La Tondena argued that only finished products should be subject to taxation, a position supported by legislative debates and historical context around the rationale for the amendment. The Court analyzed the legal framework surrounding the taxation of alcohol and clarified that the specific tax should attach only to the alcohol as a finished product.

Conclusion on Jurisdiction and Timeliness of Appeal

On the issue of jurisdiction, th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.