• No results found

STAT CON- Insular Lumber Co v CA

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "STAT CON- Insular Lumber Co v CA"

Copied!
6
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Ancheta, Eros Freuy B. Ancheta, Eros Freuy B. Statutory

Statutory ConstructioConstructionn

How a require of title is construed How a require of title is construed

Insular Lumber Co. Vs Court of Appeals 104 SCRA 10 Insular Lumber Co. Vs Court of Appeals 104 SCRA 10 !acts"

!acts"

Insular Lumber Company, purchased manufactured oil and motor fuel which it used Insular Lumber Company, purchased manufactured oil and motor fuel which it used in

in the the opeoperaratiotion n of of its its forforest est conconcescessiosion, n, sawsawmilmill, l, plaplannnning ing milmills, ls, powpower er uniunits,ts, ehicles, dry !ilns, water pumps, lawn mowers, and in furnishing free water and ehicles, dry !ilns, water pumps, lawn mowers, and in furnishing free water and light to its employees, on which speci"c ta#

light to its employees, on which speci"c ta# was paid.was paid.

In $%&', (epublic Act )o. $*+& was passed. Section & thereof proides that there In $%&', (epublic Act )o. $*+& was passed. Section & thereof proides that there should be a partial ta# refund to those using oil in the operation of forest and mining should be a partial ta# refund to those using oil in the operation of forest and mining concessions.

concessions. n

n -ec-ecembember er , , $%'$%'*, *, the the ComCompanpany y "le"led d witwith h the the ComCommismissiosioner ner of of IntInterernanall (eenue, claiming for refund of /$%,%$.+0 representing &1 of the speci"c ta# (eenue, claiming for refund of /$%,%$.+0 representing &1 of the speci"c ta# pai

paid d on on the manufthe manufactacturured ed oil and oil and fufuel el usused ed in in its operaits operatiotions ns purpursusuant to ant to thethe proisions of Section &, (epublic Act )o. $*+&

proisions of Section &, (epublic Act )o. $*+&  2he

 2he commissioner commissioner denied denied the the Company3s Company3s claim claim for for refund refund on on the the ground ground that that thethe priilege of partial ta# refund granted by Section & of (epublic Act )o. $*+& is only priilege of partial ta# refund granted by Section & of (epublic Act )o. $*+& is only e4ectie & years from its enactment. 5ence, in $%'$ the said the date e4ectiity of  e4ectie & years from its enactment. 5ence, in $%'$ the said the date e4ectiity of  said has e#pired. Conse6uently, oil used in such concession after 7une $*, $%'$ are said has e#pired. Conse6uently, oil used in such concession after 7une $*, $%'$ are sub8ect to the full ta# prescribed in Section $* of the )ational Internal (eenue sub8ect to the full ta# prescribed in Section $* of the )ational Internal (eenue Code.

Code.

n April %, $%'&, the petitioners appealed the issue to the C2A 9Court of 2a# n April %, $%'&, the petitioners appealed the issue to the C2A 9Court of 2a# Appeals: and the C2A ruled that the proision of the said (epublic Act cannot be Appeals: and the C2A ruled that the proision of the said (epublic Act cannot be e#tended to the operators of

e#tended to the operators of the sawmill. In return, the C2A credited $;,&'.; /5/the sawmill. In return, the C2A credited $;,&'.; /5/ to

to ththe e cocompmpanany y ononly ly bebecacaususe e ththe e ririghght t of of ththe e cocompmpanany<y<s s clclaiaim m of of a a rrefefunundd particularly those paid in 7an. $, $%' to April %, $%'+ had already prescribed.

particularly those paid in 7an. $, $%' to April %, $%'+ had already prescribed. CI( assigns the following errors=

CI( assigns the following errors= $.

$. 2he C22he C2A errA erred in not holded in not holding (ing (A $*+& ino!A $*+& ino!ed by the Insued by the Insular Lumberlar Lumber Company as legal basis for ta# refund is null and oid for being

Company as legal basis for ta# refund is null and oid for being unconstitutional

unconstitutional .

. 2he C22he C2A errA erred in not holded in not holding that the ping that the partial e#artial e#emption of minemption of miners and forers and forestest concessionaries under (A $*+& is limited only to & years from 7une $*,$%&' concessionaries under (A $*+& is limited only to & years from 7une $*,$%&' +.

+. 2he C22he C2A errA erred in not holded in not holding that the Iing that the Insular Lumbnsular Lumber Company<s cer Company<s claim for thelaim for the used oil and fuels in 6uestion, has already e#pired and no longer in force

used oil and fuels in 6uestion, has already e#pired and no longer in force *.

*. 2he C22he C2A errA erred in holding ed in holding that the companthat the company is entitled y is entitled to the ta# rto the ta# refund ofefund of $;,&';.; /5/

$;,&';.; /5/  2he Company, as

 2he Company, as appellant asappellant assigned the fosigned the following erllowing errors=rors= $.

$. 2he C22he C2A errA erred in ruled in ruling that ing that the company the company is not enis not entitled of titled of the speci"c the speci"c ta#ta# refund in the operation of

refund in the operation of its sawmill.its sawmill. .

. 2he C22he C2A errA erred in holding ed in holding that the claim that the claim for refufor refund on ta# has nd on ta# has alreadyalready prescribed on the periods from 7an $, $%'+ to April %, $%'+.

(2)
(3)

Ancheta, Eros Freuy B. Statutory Construction

+. 2he C2A erred in CI( to refund to the petitioner only $;,&';.; instead of $%,%$.+0 as claimed by the /etitioner.

ISS>E=

?hether or not to grant the /artial 2a# (efund to ILC

5EL-.

 @es, but only in the amount as found by the C2A. 2he Supreme Court ruled that there is no merit in the contention of the CI(. (A $*+& deals with only one sub8ect and proclaims 8ust one policy, namely, the necessity for increasing the 5ighway Special Fund through the imposition of an increased speci"c ta# on manufactured oils. 2he proiso in Sec & of the law is in e4ect a partial e#emption from the imposed increased ta#. Said proiso, which has reference to speci"c ta# on oil and fuel, is not a deiation from the general sub8ect of the law.

 2he primary purpose of the afore6uoted constitutional proision is to prohibit duplicity in legislation the title of which might completely fail to apprise the legislators or the public of the nature, scope and conse6uences of the law or its operation. But that is not so for in the passage of (A $*+& since, as the records of its proceedings bear out, a full debate on precisely the issue of whether its title reects its complete sub8ect was held by Congress which passed it.

(4)
(5)

Ancheta, Eros Freuy B. Statutory Construction

Issue#s"

?hether or not the Insular Lumber Co. is entitled of the full ta# refund pursuant to (A $*+

?hether or not that the proision of (A $*+& is constitutional

Assuming that (A $*+& is unconstitutional, what ta# refund shall be granted to Insular Lumber Co.

(6)

References

Related documents