CTA Case No. 1897 (Decision)

l~i!.PUBU r 01'' l ~H. I'HI LIP PI!'<Ii:fll COUR1' OF TAX APPEALS Ol~'C70N C~ 1'V PROCTER & GAHBLE PHILIPPINE I ~~NUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO~ 1897 COMHISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X - .- - .- - ------X DEC I S I 0 N This is a petition for review of a decision of respondent. Commiss ioner of Internal Revenue dated Oct.ober 24, 196 7 denying the prote.s .t of peti tione:r Procter & Gamble Philippine Hanufac- turing Corporation (forme-rly Philippine Manufac- tur:ing, Company) _agai nst an assessment for de:fi- ciency sales t a x for 1958 in the total amount o f ~16 0, 441.63 consisti n g, of: Basic deficiency sales ta x - ~120,353.30 25% surcharge - - - - . _ "'0.rP..�8.3:> Total deficiency tax - ~150,441.63 and surc harge - - - Compromise penalty - 10,000.00 Total Amount. Due - - - - - - ~160,441.63 Petitioner Procter & Gamble Philippin e Manuf actu ring Corporati~n (formerly Phil i ppin e Manufactur.ing Company) is a corporation duly 71

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 2- organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with principal office: at Sarmiento Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal. It is� engaged in the manufactur e and sale of lard, margarine, soap, cooking oil and other similar coconut oil products. In a letter dated August 18, 1959 (p. 2, BIR records)~ respondent informed petitioner that upon investig ation conducted by agents of his office, "it was ascertained that as manu- facturer you failed to pay the correct sales tax during the year 1958 as a result of the inclusion of the value of materials purchased from con- tractors in your deductible cost, in violation of sections 183 and 186, penalized under section 20 9, all of� the (the n in force) _National Internal Revenue Code. There is, therefore, due from you the sum of P66,356.63, computed as follows: Cost of boxes disallowed, represented at 107% � � � � P811,446. 77 Cost of boxes without tax � � 758,361.47 7 % tax due on ~758,361.47 ~53,085.30 25% surcharge thereon � � � 13,271.33 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & COLLECTIBLE P66 1 356, �.�1." A compromise penalty of PlO,OOO.OO for extrajudicial settlement of the penal liability

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 3- for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code was likewise imposed. A request for reinvestigation was apparently filed by petitioner: for under date of s .eptember. 28, 1962, BIR examiner Jose P. de Castro filed his memor a ndum on the reL:;ults of his invest.igat.ion (Exhs. "l" & "A", pp. 65-67, BIR records),. and based o n his findings and recommendation a r e vised assessme nt was issued on March 12, 1963 by the then Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue Jose B. L:i.ngad (Exhs. "2" & "A", pp. 73-74, BIR re- cords) �. To quote: Please be informed that upon re- investigation conducted by an examiner of this Office, it was ascertained that you erroneously deducted from your g,ross sales of lard, margarine, soap and other similar coconut oil products during. 1958, the value of your purchases from contrac- tors as par t of your deductible raw mate- rials, in viol ation of sections 183 and 186, penalized under section 209, all of the� National In t ernal Revenue Code. It was further verified that your. claim for tax credit in your monthly returns for November, 1958, was not subs t antiated as having been a llmved by fui.s Office, hence its disallowance. There is, there- fore, due from you the sum of Pl50,441.63, computed as follows: Cost of boxes disallowed, represented at 107% - !:.�1:.1 c.446. 77,_ Cost of boxes without t.ax- P758,36l.47 �-� '~ '~� r~ .)

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 4- 7% tax due on ~758 1 361.47 - - - - ' 53,085.30 - ~ 67 ,268.00 Tax Credit disallowed - Taxes due - - .- - - - ~ - - - - - ~120 1 353.30 25% su~charge thereon - .- .- - - ~ P 30,088.33 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND COLLECTIBLE ~150 1 441. 63� Demand is her.:eby made upon you to pay the aforesaid sum of ~150 1 441.63 within ten (10) _days from your receipt hereof. Should you desire to extrajudicially settle the penal liability arising from you r afor esa id violation, you may pay the sum of PlO,OOO.OO as compromise penalty in addition to Iil50 1 441.63 1 or a total of ~160,441 .63. In a lett er dated May 23, 1963, petitioner prot.es.ted the af ore-quoted assessment. {pp. 133- 137 1 BIR records.) This was followed by anothe r letter.-protest dated July 15 1 1963. (pp. 129-13�2 1 BIR .records. ) At this juncture, it may be stated that on May 26, 196 4 , pet it.ioner, through its treasurer, executed a waiver o f the statute of limitation u nde:1:: the National Internal Revenue Code in con- sideration of the approval by respondent of its request for reinvestigation or reconsideration of the assessment. {p. 141, BIR records)~ Anothe r waiver of the statute of limitation was executed on De~cember 28, 1966 by petitioner upon request ( _\

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - ,5 - of the t hen Acting Deputy Commissioner 'of Internal Revenue. (p. 191, BIR records.) In a letter dated October 28, 1967, resp'?ndent Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the pro- tes t s of petitione r dated May 23, 1963 and July 15, 1963. Hence, the inst~nt appeal. The f inal dec i sion of respondent denying the prot ests o f petitioner against the assessment for de f iciency sales tax and surcharge of Ill 50,441.63 1 as i de f.rom t he compromise penalty of :EllO,OOO.OO, was arrived at as follows: (Exh. "3", pp. 215- 216, BIR records.) Cost of boxes disallowed ~811,446; .77 represe:nt.e d at 107% - - - - Cost of boxes without tax- - - - 758,361.47 7% tax on Il758,361.47 - - - - - P 53,085.30 Tax Credit disallowed - - - - - - 67, 268,. 00 Deficiency sales tax due Pl20,353.30 25% surcharge thereon - - - 30,088.33 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE --- - - Pl50,441.63 A perusal of the decision appealed from (Exh. " 3 ", pp. 215-216, BIR reco t" ds; pp. 5 -6, CTA r: e - cords)~ wi l l readily show that it consists, ex- c ept the compromise penalty of PlO,OOO, of two p a rts: (1) ,the 7% sales tax on :@758,361.47 and (2) .t he tax credit disallowed in the amount of :El67,268.00. As explain.ed by respondent in his 75 I 1

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 6- decision: The amount of ii758,361.47 represents the cost of boxes used as containers of your client's products which was deducted from its gross sales for the period, re- sulting in the above-mentioned deficiency_ Your client claims that it correctly deducted the cost of said boxes because they were purchased from the manufacturers. Inves t igation, however, reveals that the alleged manufacturers were mere printers which made the boxes in question upon spe- cific orde rs of your client and which paid only the 3% contractor's tax on their gross receipts. As it was your client that c~used the manufacture of said boxes, it is considered the manufacturer thereof, and as the 7% sales tax due thereon had not yet been paid, the cost thereof should not have been deducted from your client 1 s. gross receipts. While the tax credit disallowed in the sum of P 6 7 , 2 6 8 � 0 0 ref e.r s to : As regards the amount of ii67,268.00, which was added to your client's tax � liability, our examiner reporte:d t hat said amount of P67,268.00 was deducted by your cleint. from its tax liability for the period as alleged t .ax credit in its favor. Hor.vever, no suc:h tax credit was authorized by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in 1958. In other words, without having been granted a tax credit in its favor, your client deducted from the tax due from it alleged overpayment of advance sales tax. We need not stress that under. the law, the taxpayer can not !!l~ f?�Opr.f.C2 deduct from its tax liability an alleged tax credit which has not yet been approved. In his memorandum dated July 29, 1981 filed

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 7- with this Court, respondent poses two iss.ues before us (pp. 206-207, CTA records): (1) Whether or not the cost of container�s (boxes and cartons) used by petitioner in the sale of iis finished products is deductible from the gross selling price of its finished products such as lard, mar- garine, soap and cooking oil; and (2) Whether or not petitioner can automatically deduct from its sales tax liability the amount of P67,268.00 representing alleged tax credit which has not been approved or author iz.ed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The parties are in agreement on the cost of boxes and cartons disallowed and from whom s;uch containers were purchased. As shown in the sti- pulation of facts filed by them on September. 5, 1972 (p. 51, CTA records): 1. That cost of containers dis- allowed (shown gross) were purchased from the following: a) General Offset Press P735,952.74 b) tarmelo & Bauermann 3�9,258.03 c) Samson Box ' 3 6 ( 2 3 6 � o.o Total - 107% .? 811, c4 4 6 � 77 Total - 100% ~.7 5 8 L..ill.:..ii Before resolving t~e question as to whether or not the cost of boxes and cartons used in the --� ~. ./ 77 )

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 8- sale of petitioner's finished products is deduct- ible from its gross selling price, pertinent to state here is the contention of pelitioner that respondent cannot anymore enforce collection of the portion of the assessment under review re- lating to the disallowance� of the cost of boxes and cartons, assuming arguend.o that the dis- allowance of the cost of such containers claimed by petitioner as deductible was proper, on the ground that said assessment had been extinguished by compromise. Considering that a compromise has the effect and authority of ~ judicaB upon the parties (Art. 2037, Civil Code)'� a finding of the Cour t that the portion of the assessment relating to the disallowance of cost of containers had been compromised would therefore have the effect of barring respondent from collecting the deficiency sales tax of ~53,085.30 involved in the assessment. The records of the case show that petitioner Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corpo- ration was assessed by respondent per his letter dated February 14, 1964 deficiency manufacturer's sales tax for the years 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 70 ()

DECISION - CT~ CASE NO. 1897 - 9- in the sum of �.11,273,070.41. , (Exhs. "S" & "B-1." � pp. 69-71, CTA records.) The details of the assessment are as follows: (Ibid) Taxable amount per investigation (1958-61) Ei 57 ' 916 ' ,9 2 2 � 55 7% Sales tax due thereon �.1 4,054,184.58 Less: Tax withheld by government agency Ei 942.98 Taxes already paid 3 '0 38 , 78 5,. 27 3,039,728.25 Deficiency sales tax due Ei 1,014,456.33 Add: 25% Surc hilr ge 253,, ,614. 08 TOTAL A~10UN'r DUE AND DEMANDABLE Ei 1,268,0,70.41 And a breakdown of the 1958-1961 deficiency sales tax assessment covers the following periods: (Ibid ) 1. Calendar year 1958 2. January to April 1959 and May to December: 1959 3. Calendar year 1960 4. Calendar year 1961 The issues appearing in the said 1958-1961 deficiency sales tax assessment are the � following,: (I bid) 1. Treatment of sales tax not billed separately to customers as part of taxable sales;

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 10 - 2. Disallowance of certain locally- purchased materials allegedly because the suppliers were subjected to 3% contractor 1 ~ tax and not to the 7% sales tax; 3. Disallowance of certain imported raw materials on which 7% advance sales tax had been paid on the ground that said materials did not form part of the 'finished products; and 4. Disallowance of deduction for 2% miller 1 s tax paid on coconut oil milled by our client and used as raw material in the manufacture of lard, margarine and soap. In its memorandum dated January 28, 1974, contesting the 1958-1961 deficiency sales tax assessmen ~ for ~1,273,070.41 of respomdent (Exh. "B", ibid)'� petitioner clearly and specifically � pointed to respondent that a duplication or over- lapping assessment exist with respect to the portion corresponding to calendar year 1958 which is covered in this case. To quote the pertinent portion of Exhibit "B" which is marked as Exhibit "B-2" and found on page 78 of the CTA records: Under date of October 21 , 1967, you issued an assessment against our client based, among others, on the alleged fact that purchases in the amo unt of ~758,361.47 were made from .1.

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - ll - 11 contractors 11 (General Offset Press, Samson Box, and Carmela & Bauermann). You assessed our client the sum of � ~120,353.30 (excluding 25% surcharge), of which the amount of ~53,085.30 � corresponded to 7% of the disallowance of of ~758,361.47. In addition, you also assessed our client for 25% surcharge amounting to P30,088.33, of which the amount of Pl3,271.33 corresponds to surcharge on ~53,085.30. Said assess- ment is presently the subject of CTA Case No. 1870 of which your Bureau is or should be aware and should, therefore, take cognizance of. The overlap or duplication consists of the amount of P53,085.30 as deficiency 7% sales tax assessment , and 25% surcharge thereon in th~ amount of ~13,271.33. The assessment resulting from the disallowance from the 1958 deductions of petitioner of the cost of. cartons and boxes which were purchased from the Gene r al Offset Press, Carmela & Bauermann and Samson Box in the total amount of ~811,446.77 at 107%, or ~758,361.47 - .100% (Stipulation of Facts dated August 20, 1972, .�Upra,) .appears therefore to be clearly duplic a ted in the 1958- 1961 deficiency sales tax assessment of ~1,273,070.41 of respondent dated February 14, 1964 insofar a s the calendar year 1958 is concerned and respondent's assessment and demand-letter dated October 24, 1967 for the amount of ~53,085.30 81

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 12 - representing 7% deficiency sales tax for 1958 on P758,361.47, which is now under review in the present proceeding. The fact of duplicated dis- allowance of the same items in the 1958-1961 de- fici ency sales tax assessment and in the case at bar is admitted by respondent. Thus: "ATTY. MATIC Exhibit B-2 is admitted with the following manifestation that the amount of P53,085.30 is indeed the subject matter of CTA Case No. 1897 which is the deficiency assessment for sales tax owing to the dis- allowance of the amount of P758,361.47, as deduction claimed by petitioner over the purchases � � � May I re-phrase my manifestation? The amount of P811,446.77 which represents the cost of boxes disallowed for the period 1958 and that the amount of P758,361.47 pertains to the cost of boxes without tax, meaning, which have not been previously taxed at 7%. My admission of Exhibit B-2 is based on this observati6n, Your Honor." � (t.s.n., September 23, 1977, pp. 26-27) The records show that by letter dated December 19, 1975, supplemented by letter dated March 20, 1976, petitioner offered to compromise the 1958-1961 deficiency sales tax assessment of

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 13 - Pl,273,070.41 under Presidential Letter of Ins- tructions No. 208. (See first paragraph, Exh. "C", p. 100, CTA records.) . And on June 28, 1976, petitioner received respondent's letter of March 31, 1976 accepting petitioner. ' s offer to comp x:o- mise the said 1958-1961 deficiency sales tax assessment for the amount of Eil27,307 .04 as full and complete settlement of the said assessment. (E.xh. "C", ibid.) Said letter reads: With reference t..o your letters of December 19, 1975, and March 30, 1976, I am pleased to inform you that your client's offer to pay Eil27,307.04 payable as follows: 40% within the month when acceptance of t.he offer is received, or within five (5) days from such receipt if reCEi.ved at or close to the end of the month; 20% on or before the 15th of each of the next succeeding 3 months is hereby accepted pursuant to Letter of Instructions No. 308. This case \.-.!ill be' considered closed and terminated upon pre- . sent.ation of the official receipt covering the payment of the compro- mise settlement in the amount of Ei127 ,307.04 as full and complete settlement of the�aforementioned assessment to the Chief, Appellate Division, of this Office. 83

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 14 - It would be appreciated if sett-lement is effected the earlie.st possible t.ime. In accordance with the conditions set forth by respondent, petitioner paid the first ins..:. tallment:. of 40% on July 2, 1976; the second ins- tallment of 20% on July 19, 1976; the third ins- tallment on August 19, 1976; and the last ins- tallment on September 19, 1976. "D-1", "E", "E-1.", "F" 1 "F-1", "G" & "G-1", pp. 101-104, CTA records.) Petitioner Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation having, complied with the conditions imposed by respondent for a full and complete~ settlement o f the 1958-1961 defi- ciency sales tax assessment, in accordance with respondent's acceptance of compromise, the said 1958-1961 deficiency sales tax assessment may therefore be considered closed and terminated. And since in the deficiency sales tax assessment of ~120,353.30 now under review, excluding, the 25% surcharge, the amount of ~53,085.30 corres- pon&d to 7% of the dis allowance of ~7 58, 361. 4 7, in addition to the 25% surcharge amounting to ~30,088.33, of which the sum of ~13,271.33 8 :}

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 15 - cor responds to surcharg.e on l?l53, 085.30 ~ for the year 1958, which is also presently t he subject matter of the instant case, is duplicated in .the 1958-1961 deficiency sales tax assessment of 1?1,273,070.31, with the compromise settlement of the 1958-1961 assessment u.nder Letter o f Ins- tructions No. 308, the port ion of the said asse ss- ment re presenting the 7% sales tax on P758,301.47, or P53,085.30, and surcharge of ~13,271.33, invo lved in this case, has been extinguished by compromise settlement. A compromise, being a contract whereby the parties by making reciprocal concessions , avoid a litigation or put an end to one alrea dy c ommenced, h a s upon the pa r ties t he effe ct and authority of ~ judicata. (Arts. 20 28 & 2037 , Civil Code.) A compromise binds the parties e ven without judicial approval. (Meneses vs. De l a Rosa, 77 Phil. 34.) Re spondent cannot, t herefore, e nforce the col lection o f the ~ 5 3,085 .2 0 as part of the 1958-1961 assessme nt since it had already been extinguished by compromise. With this conclusion, it be comes unnecessary to resolve the question posed by respondent whether 85

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 16 - or not the cost of containers (boxes arid cartons) used by petitioner in the sale of its finished products is deductible from the gross selling . price of its finished products such as la.JCd, mar- garine, soap and cooking oil. Coming to the amount pf P67,268.00, which was added to petitioner's tax liability, the basis for s .uch an as s essme nt was the absence of legal right to deduct s a id amount before the refund, or as credit thereof, was approved by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The records show that by letter dated Aug,ust 12, 1958, pe'titioner filed with the appellate division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue on August 12, 1958 a claim for refund of overpaid advance sales tax collected on its shipments of essential oil. The overpayment was due to BIR Ruling No. 250 dated May 5, 1958 wherein the advance sales tax on essenti al oil was ra ised to 50%. After the diffe r ence between "essential oils" and "essences" was clarified , the: Bureau of Internal Revenue correcte d its error by issuing BIR Ru ling No. 339, dated June 24, 1958, wherein the advance sales tax on essential oil

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 was again fixed at 7 %. (Exhibit "J", p. 110, CTA records.) The claim f or r efund involves the amount of P61,382 . 00, computed as follows: Amount paid at 50%: (l) Pl l ,636.00 P67,268 . 00 (2) 55,632.00 Amount due at 7 %: (l) p 1, 018.00 (2) 4,868.QQ. __5,886 . 00 Overpayment: (l ) Pl0,618 . 00 ( 2 ) 50,, 7 6 4 �QQ. L(l) Entr y No. 039152 (2) ex "Pres. Je f f e rson" Entry No . 42503 ex "Pioneer Mart.:.'.,/ (Exhibi t "J") It appears that by letter dated December 9, 196 0 , petitioner inf o rmed respond ent:. th at it is withdrawing its r e quest for the refund of t he aforesaid amount of P61, 382.00 as advance sales tax erroneously coll e cted on its shipme nts of e�ssential oils sin c e it intend e d to apply this amo un t to its future sales tax li a bilities . This was reiterated in petitione r's letter of December 19, 1960, advising r e spondent that "Since this action has be e n taken by our Company, we have no 87

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 1897 ~- 18 - objection if you will consider this matter of the request for refund as closed." (Exh . "L", p. 113, CTA records.) The request was granted by respondent. on January 6, 1961 (Exh. "M", p. 112, CTA records) .when he in formed petitioner that: This is to acknowledg,e receipt of your letter dated December 19, 1960 requesting for the withdrawal of your claim for refund of the total amount o~ P61,382 .00 as advance sales tax alleged to have been erroneously paid on yo~r importation of eisential oils and to inform you that your said request is hereby granted and the case filed and considered closed. After petitioner had withdrawn its claim for refund and respondent had granted the same, petitioner, without fil ing a written claim for tc:tx credit wi t,h the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and of course, without authorization by respondent, mo_~,!;! .Er.2J2Ei.9. deducted the amount of P67,268.00 as tax cH;dit from its sales tax liabi lity for November, 1958. (p. 23, BIR records.) The question now before us is whether petitioner can legally deduct from its tax liability a tax which i t claims to have paid erroneously or illegally, without a wr:itten claim for tax 8 (1 u

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 19 - credit filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within two years after the payment of such tax and without author iz.ation or approval by the Commissioner. The controlling statute is Section 309 of the t hen applicable National Internal Revenue Code which authorizes the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received, or penalties imposed with- out authority. The authority of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to credit or refund taxes or penalties "can only be exercised if the claim for credit or r ef und is made in writing and filed with him within two years after: the payment of the tax or pe~alty". (Ibid.) It is quite apparent unde r the law then applicable that the authority to credit or refund taxes erroneously or illeg,ally received or: col- lected is vested exclusively in the Commissioner o_f Internal Revenue himself. The law employs the term "Commissioner. of Internal Revenue" - without more. Nothing there state:d speaks of a taxpayer being authorized unilate:rally to deduct from or credit against his tax liability

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 20 - taxes er~oneously or illegally paid by or collected from him. Even more, the law imposes the c:ondi- tion t.hat. the claim for tax credit or refund must be in writing and filed wit"h the Commissioner of Intern a l Revenue within two ye�ars after the payment of the tax. Wher~ the law authorizes sole- ly the Commissioner o f the Internal Revenue to refund or. credit taxes erroneously or illeg,ally paid or collected, that authority should not be read t o authorize taxpayers to deduct as tax credit from their tax liabilities taxes alleged to have been erroneously or illegally paid by or collected from them without authority from the Commissione:r of Internal Re.enue, c::md o nly after compliance with the requirements imposed by the law. The law is specific and mandatory. There is no room for interpretation. It merely calls for applications as worded. The purpose is obviously to assut:"e that no tax cr:ed it or: refund is made \vi thout prior investi9ation or: verif i- cation by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to insure that the taxpayer is legally entitled GO

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 1897 - 21 -- thereto, tax credits or re funds of taxes col- lected being susceptible easily to abuse to the prejudice of the Government. Public policy would seem to require therefore that no room be left for the exercise of purely personal discretion on the part of taxpayers in the matter of deducting from or crediting against their tax liabilities taxes alleged to have been erroneously or illegally paid by them without prior authority or approv~l by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On the assumpt_ion, therefore, that petitioner has made an overpayment of its advance sales tax liability for the year 1958 in the amount of P61,382.00 petitioner cannot motu J?.E.�P.ri~ credit such amount against its tax liability without authorization from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and upon written claim for the tax credit filed with him within two years from collection of the tax. Accordingly, petitioner Procter & Gamble Philippine Ma nufa cturing Corporation is hereby ordered to pay to respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue th e amou nt of ~84,085.00 re prese nting deficiency sales tax due for 1958 and 25% surcharge thereon,

... --..._.. DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1897 - 22 - computed as follows: Tax credit disallowed . ~67,268 .00 25% surcharg,e thereon � � � ~.81_7. 00 Total amount due ���� !'84_!085.00 Although the claim for tax refund was only for ~61 , 382 .0 0, the amount petitio n er actually deducted from or credited against its November 1958 sales tax liability was ~67,268.00. (p. 23, BIR records.) WHEREFORE , the decision appealed from is hereby modified in the sense that respondent can- not anymore enforce collection of the deficiency sales tax of P53,085.30 and affirmed insofar as it disallows the tax credit of P67,268.00 . With costs against petitioner. SO ORDEHED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, February 26, 1982. (a#----~a~/[-~-1.---f/<---.\~.J -kv? AMANTE ylLLER Presiding Judge VIE CONCUH: -1 'E/~.:./A~> ,..- CON[,TANTE?'c. HOAQU IN /Assoc iate Judge _/ ._ 1~ , <Z:�">. R(~EY_1ES~.~a,/7 Associate Jud .