Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Cir vs. Portland Cement

    Uploaded by

    Jan Mar Gigi Gallego
    The CIR ordered a refund of overpaid taxes to Cebu Portland Cement Company. CIR opposed the refund, citing an outstanding sales tax liability owed by Cebu. Cebu contested the assessed tax, arguing cement was a mineral not subject to the tax. The Supreme Court held that assessed taxes can be enforced even if contested, as tax collection is essential to fund the government. Delaying taxes by simply questioning validity would cripple the state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cir vs. Portland Cement

    Uploaded by

    Jan Mar Gigi Gallego
    56 views1 page
    The CIR ordered a refund of overpaid taxes to Cebu Portland Cement Company. CIR opposed the refund, citing an outstanding sales tax liability owed by Cebu. Cebu contested the assessed tax, arguing cement was a mineral not subject to the tax. The Supreme Court held that assessed taxes can be enforced even if contested, as tax collection is essential to fund the government. Delaying taxes by simply questioning validity would cripple the state.

    Original Description:

    Cir vs. Portland Cement

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The CIR ordered a refund of overpaid taxes to Cebu Portland Cement Company. CIR opposed the refund, citing an outstanding sales tax liability owed by Cebu. Cebu contested the assessed tax, arguing cement was a mineral not subject to the tax. The Supreme Court held that assessed taxes can be enforced even if contested, as tax collection is essential to fund the government. Delaying taxes by simply questioning validity would cripple the state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    Cir vs. Portland Cement

    Uploaded by

    Jan Mar Gigi Gallego
    The CIR ordered a refund of overpaid taxes to Cebu Portland Cement Company. CIR opposed the refund, citing an outstanding sales tax liability owed by Cebu. Cebu contested the assessed tax, arguing cement was a mineral not subject to the tax. The Supreme Court held that assessed taxes can be enforced even if contested, as tax collection is essential to fund the government. Delaying taxes by simply questioning validity would cripple the state.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CIR vs.

    Cebu Portland Cement


    G.R. No. L-29059, 15 December 1987

    Facts:
    CTA decision ordered the petitioner CIR to refund to the Cebu Portland Cement Company, respondent, P
    359,408.98 representing overpayments of ad valorem taxes on cement sold by it. Execution of judgement was
    opposed by the petitioner citing that private respondent had an outstanding sales tax liability to which the
    judgment debt had already been credited. In fact, there was still a P4 M plus balance they owed. The Court of Tax
    Appeals, in holding that the alleged sales tax liability of the private respondent was still being questioned and
    therefore could not be set-off against the refund, granted private respondent's motion. The private respondent
    questioned the assessed tax based on Article 186 of the Tax Code, contending that cement was adjudged a mineral
    and not a manufactured product; and thusly they were not liable for their alleged tax deficiency. Thereby,
    petitioner filed this petition for review.

    Issue: Whether or not assessment of taxes can be enforced even if there is a case contesting it.

    Held:
    The argument that the assessment cannot as yet be enforced because it is still being contested loses sight of the
    urgency of the need to collect taxes as "the lifeblood of the government." If the payment of taxes could be
    postponed by simply questioning their validity, the machinery of the state would grind to a halt and all government
    functions would be paralyzed. That is the reason why, save for the exception in RA 1125 , the Tax Code provides
    that injunction is not available to restrain collection of tax. Thereby, we hold that the respondent Court of Tax
    Appeals erred in its order.

    You might also like