This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| As to the issue of PAL's noncompliance with the conditions set by Section 13 of P.D. 1509 for the imported supplies to be exempt from excise tax, it must be noted that these are factual determinations that are best left to the CTA. The appellate court found that PAL had complied with these conditions.[14] The CTA is a highly specialized body that reviews tax cases and conducts trial de novo. Therefore, without any showing that the findings of the CTA are unsupported by substantial evidence, its findings are binding on this Court.[15] | |||||
|
2014-08-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners, in a bid to foil PAL's instant claim for refund, has raised as a corollary sub-issue the question of PAL's non-compliance with the conditions particularly set by Sec. 13 of PD 1509 for the imported supplies to be exempt from excise tax. These conditions are: (1)such supplies are imported for the use of the franchisee in its transport/non-transport operations and other incidental activities; and (2) they are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality and price. Suffice it to state in this regard that the question thus raised is one of fact, the determination of which is best left to the CTA, it being a highly specialized body that reviews tax cases.[15] Without a showing that the CTA's findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, the findings thereof are binding on the Court.[16] | |||||