CTA Case No. 324 (Decision)
' o, PHILIPPr~~ ACEI'YLIU:!; CI Petiti::mt'r , - versus - CaT . A. CASE NO . 324 SILVERIO BLA~UBRA , as Collector of InternaJ Revenue , X- - - - - - - - - - - X � D .5 C I 8 I 0 N The petition0r is a doMestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of oxygen Qnd acetylene gases . In a letter dated June o, 1956 , received by petitioner on July 5, 1956 , respondent asses5ed against pet'tioner a deficiency sales tax and surcharge amount- ing to Pl0 , 879 o03, covering the period ~rom 1951 to the second quarter of 1955, computed as follows : Tg.xable sales o ����� o ���� o. ~1 , 584 . 728954 7% tax due therco1 ���...� o 110 , 931 . ~0 Less : amount paid �� o ������ 102 , 227 . 7~ Deficiency sales~ . ���..� 8,703 . 22 2, 175 . 81 257o surchar ~ �������� o ���� 10 , H79.&Ql Total o �������������� o � Petitioner was also asked to pay the sun of P500aOO , in a dition to the sum of Pl0 , 879 o03 , if it desired to settle extrajudicially its violation of Sections ,183 and 186 of the National Internal ~evenue Code , penalized under Sr.c- tion 209 of the saMe Codoo Petitioner souf-ht a roc1nsideration of the ussess - ment, and , upon denial thereof , appealed to this Court . Two isstes have been raised in this appeal , to wit : ( 1) 'l.�rhether or not the appeal -vras 'iled vli th �n the sta- =-:: -- =--- -� ..
, - 2- 0 y io 0 ys r c:t1on 11 of 1 c ct o. 12 � an ( ?.) t t de- f ency t� 1� r on 1 of t �� t ee of -.. - f ry ion � f �v�r� on f - pet of acear-c � ollecto � ct 1 0 n pr � i lty � IJ .. I :J
�4 .. 3 � , of f c cy !; nt. t t d th t p - ubj ct 0 rc nt n ts f oxy n n c g � oss G r n y nc --- ctlo ro te tr to t und e on t ot 1 nt 0 v lue r tr � t1 l nt rn 1 ro x. 1 n� 0c t i r� eul �t J r 12, v ly. ) t t � nd � t c on r 1 � c r 1 �� ������������ ;' 3
E � S24 -- 0 0 �������������������� � 1 . ~J4� � �� ������� � ���� � � ~ 11 p t d y r ������������������� 0 rt fc � tha t to eu r le ly s. r: t ly h �� t c ... " c 11 wl ~ r u~ t y lt atla :1��� � 1
... � 24 -- �������� � � � � � � � .~--oiio!JroAoji~~~� X ����������� ������������������ xa i' ' 5
~� � � � -, r t l tX nt COl i r �� p od of n rt _e � � it s e l r ita 1n the nvoic dt t d t o. l . 1n n r 1 1r 1 t ill the t � if rep.r nt th n ft x, t of ~ cul r c: n bill not nin d et�on 186 ( co tX Q on) , r nt � ot l n t l " 111 to t ~ t y on � thor z y o. .,l , f. � � 111 t to rfi t1 0 t f 61. l. unt ( v ll t lh d � f y cl t xclu i t tt - i n r t to h � . !.1 1 r v1 � / ;, ; 6 d '
�2 -7- � . s. ch tn p t t1 n r eoll ct t ount lr dy t h 1 1c cu en . tt y py t er, v ttf!c n r 1 l y 1t h l; 1 nt 11 ly 0 fr n0 pr r i' ~ 7
I -- � p t� ' th f �- 1. 1 h!ch t al t x has �� � � n1 y the cu a p ut .~h te ro pet ttl er � /.~ . r - � t - t r � not c t t ): t l.t c t � lt r t0 � lt - � t at 1 nt of c 11 t � c .. t t i oner; t x rc r 1 o- r y co lre y h1 0 h t n of y t0 1 nu,, � c.: 0 nt r to c I do p t hG u - � ccord n ly. ur 1 on to sald f o. � (y 1 o�� � v � t r of Int rn 1 o. 15~. � 19 7. ) . . . ~-. ! .:'
y p nt st � � pet r ya � 1 h s lnt pet t1 r. � y 1 � 19 � 9 I
More in CTA Decisions
- THE TABLE GROUP INC., represented by MR. WALDEN CHU, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 11091)
- SORSOGON II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (SORECO II) v. THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR) rep. by the Hon. Commissioner and the Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office No. 68 (Sorsogon)(Formerly EB UDK No. 21)(CTA Case No. EB 1966)
- CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8252)
- PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(CTA Case No. 5524)
- CTA Case No. 5448 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 5448)
- NOKIA (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 1585)
- VIRICSON CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REVENUE REGION NO. 8 - MAKATI CITY; BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICE NO. 52, PARA?AQUE(CTA Case No. 8709)
- ISLAND POWER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 26)
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.