This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners argue that we have previously ruled in Central Luzon Drug Corporation[37] that the 20% discount is an exercise of the power of eminent domain, thus, requiring the payment of just compensation. They urge us to re-examine our ruling in Carlos Superdrug Corporation[38] which allegedly reversed the ruling in Central Luzon Drug Corporation.[39] They also point out that Carlos Superdrug Corporation[40] recognized that the tax deduction scheme under the assailed law does not provide for sufficient just compensation. | |||||
|
2011-10-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioners, however, failed to provide us with any cause or justification for this course of action. Hence, while the judicial department and this Court are not bound by the acceptance of the President's certification by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, prudent exercise of our powers and respect due our co-equal branches of government in matters committed to them by the Constitution, caution a stay of the judicial hand.[22] | |||||
|
2006-08-16 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On October 30, 1995, this Court, in Tolentino et al., lifted the TRO after it denied with finality the motions for reconsideration of its decision upholding the constitutionality of the E-VAT Law.[17] | |||||
|
2005-09-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Resort to indirect taxes should be minimized but not avoided entirely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid them by imposing such taxes according to the taxpayers' ability to pay. In the case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive effects of this imposition by providing for zero rating of certain transactions (R.A. No. 7716, §3, amending §102 (b) of the NIRC), while granting exemptions to other transactions. (R.A. No. 7716, §4 amending §103 of the NIRC)[99] CONCLUSION | |||||