CTA Case No. 50 (Resolution)
REPUBLIC OF TIS PHILIPPINES COLJ.H.r 0? TAX AP.PEALS MANILA PIIIL.IPPINE AMERICAN DRUG COMPANY, Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO . 50 COI.Ll.11CTOR OF INTERNAL REVENO'E, Re spondent . x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x RESO L UTION This is in connection with the tq,loticm To Dismiss" ..I filed by the petitioner Philippine American Drug Company , � dated February 18, 1955, praying that the above-entitled case be dismissed vJithout special pronouncement as to costs . 1 It appears that on August 4, 1949, the respondent Col- lector of Internal Revenue levied and assessed against the petitioner the amount of P33 , 260 .85 representing alleged deficiency sales tax, surcharc;es and penalties on dental gold imported by the latter in the years 1946 to 1948, in- clusive . The petitioner paid the said sum of 33, 260 .85, but on September 10 , 1953, it filed with the respondent a claim for refund thereof on the cround that the said assess- ment is erroneous and illegal . No action having 'been taken by the respondent on the said claim for refund within the period of two (2) years , the petitioner, on December 16, 1954, filed a petition for review with this Court in order to protect its right to recover the aforesaid amount of f1'33 , 260 .85, in accordance with the provisions of Section 306 of the National Internal Revenue Code . However, on February 17, 1955, the petitioner received a letter from respondent i11forming the former that a tax credit in the l)-8
Rb."SSLUTION - C. T . A. CASE NO . 50 . - 2- amount of ~33, 260 . 85 was ,ranted in its favor , which amount was the subject matter of its claim for refund and of its petition for review filed before t his Court. Considerin' that the petitioner Philippine American Drug Company has no more cause of action against the respondent Collector of In- tarnal Revenue, and with the conformity of the counsel for the respondent; AS PRAYED FOR, LET the above-entitled case be dismissed without special pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDlmED . Manila, February 26, 1955.
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.