AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ISSUE: Who are eligible for tax refund?

Conclusion: Taxpayers engaged in zero-related transactions may apply for a tax refund. Legal Reason: 1. A taxpayer engaged in zero-rated transactions may apply for tax refund for unutilized VAT provided the taxpayer complies with the requirements of CIR. 2. Automatic zero rating is primarily intended to be enjoyed by the seller who is directly and legally liable for the VAT. Evidence: 1. Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732 and Section 16 of Revenue Regulations provided requirements for applying for tax refund, one of which is the purchase invoice or receipt evidencing the value added tax paid. 2. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Seagate Technology (Philippines) G.R. No. 153866, February 11, 2005, 451 SCRA 132, 143-144 held that petitioner, as zero-rated seller, hence, directly and legally liable for VAT, can claim a refund or tax credit certificate.

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ISSUE: Who has jurisdiction to review decisions involving disputed tax assessments? Conclusion: CTA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of CIR involving disputed tax assessments. Legal Reason: 1. CTA, being a court of special jurisdiction, can take cognizance of only of matters within its jurisdiction. 2. The case is an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. 3. The Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment notices which Allied Banking Corporation did not administratively protested can be considered a final decision appealable to CTA. Evidence: 1. Section 7 of RA 9282 expressly provides that the CTA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments. 2. In Vda. De Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission, the respondent was estopped from invoking the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies considering that in its Resolution, it said, "The opinions promulgated by the Secretary of Justice are advisory in nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office seeking the opinion, and any aggrieved party has the court for recourse". The statement of the respondent in said case led the petitioner to conclude that only a final judicial ruling in her favor would be accepted by the Commission. 3. Section 9 of RA 9282, likewise uses the term "appeal" when referring to the action a taxpayer must take when adversely affected by a decision, ruling, or inaction of the CIR.

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS PROVINCE OF QUEZON AND MUNICIPALITY OF PAGBILAO ISSUE: Who may appeal real property tax assessments? Conclusion: The legal owner of the property has the right to appeal the real propertys tax assessments. Legal Reason: 1. Legal interest is defined as interest in property or a claim cognizable at law, equivalent to that of a legal owner who has legal title to the property. 2. To be considered owners of the subject machineries, it should have complied with Sections 202 and 206 of the LGC. Evidence: 1. Under Section 226 of the LGC, any owner or person having legal interest in the property may appeal an assessment for real property taxes to the LBAA. 2. Sec 202 and 206 obligates owners of real property to: a. file a sworn statement declaring the true value of the real property, whether taxable or exempt; and b. file sufficient documentary evidence supporting its claim for tax exemption.

ANGELES CITY VS ANGELES CITY ELECTRIC CORP., ET. AL ISSUE: Can the collection of local taxes be enjoined by RTC? Conclusion: There is no prohibition for injunction enjoining the collection of taxes. Legal Reason: 1. The LGC does not specifically prohibit an injunction enjoining the collection of taxes. 2. Two requisites must exist to warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, namely: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. 3. The purpose of injunction is to prevent injury and damage from being incurred, otherwise, it will render any judgment in this case ineffectual. Evidence: 1. Valley Trading Co., Inc. v. Court of First Instance of Isabela, Branch II, held that unlike the National Internal Revenue Code, the Local Tax Code does not contain any specific provision prohibiting courts from enjoining the collection of local taxes. 2. Section 3, Rule 58, of the Rules of Court lays down the requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, viz: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of, or in the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, or agency or a person is doing, threatening, or attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. 3. Cagayan de Oro City Landless Res. Assn. Inc. vs. CA, 254 SCRA 220) "As an extraordinary remedy, injunction is calculated to preserve or maintain the status quo of things and is generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be heard"