German Club, Inc. vs. CC.T.A. Case No. 3606 the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al.

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 2406 Phidappgnes, with pragqcapado oof ftee ab Patt Plaar, Buroavaidlla Bklhiltpes Flere Sta Ler.

Makatig Metro Manila (Par. 2, Pebitien, admidtied in paragraph 1, Answer, pp. doand 28, OTA rew.da whale 5 respondent des bhe wading Coswiestuner of Tobernal Meyenie who holaus office at the National Office BMoilding of the Euresauw oof Tnternal Revenue at Daid.iman, Oursaan CGaity, (par. Gh, Febition, admitted ino par. 2a Atvewer, ap. doamed FA, OTA rec.)

Seme liane: ola bhe year Dy respondent Ac Sound.

Vane aot Under mad Perv » bough Reg doad Bosvenuwe Disteieohk: Of ficer of Soulh Manila, asses eut pedi biome r for meateprer cs bax. mepriarrnr time roses apa bes Praim of. Fesoel oanel cithies rae Free hmienr bes oad Foon cpr eye Live ye fram L974 to T°78 dnelusive, aim the total aAmouiit of 2 PF, SS, (Pars. 2 & 4, Petition, admitted am omar. 2, Answer, pp. 1 to 2 and 18, CTA recs) CIES aa CONSE QUence of said ASSessment .

JL tiener cry August nds L981 paid the said sment ouneler Proc in the total amount of oe

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO. 2606 ' pp. VdeGiy OTA rec.) (wy July 10, J°781, petabkioner filed wath lhe respor office a claim for refiune im the saad total amount of " (Paar. LO, stition, edmitted in par. 6) ANSweary pp. S and 1S, CMA en, ¢ eee alma fi, Pye 44°49, OFA rec. } However, orevepondort ook havarg ached oon thre saad petibioner’ os claim for refund, the father oon Mareh te Lis Moar ty, Gppbeap parsed Gd hea apyse Poeec before oe for pmsoabithisiy ie whebbyor opr nob opeabiataoner is enbkaiblecd tai ite rr laim for refund dn othe ameikh oof POS eae. Te opetd by are tliddorer ke pancdeork dy way of makers, a hax pureuant ta Serta TEP A af thw Tax Code.

The ifnite as moto oone of first aimpreession. In thes Cases qf Manila Hotel Corporation VS.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Ca hey.

ray ce PPL, February Lo, Leas , iting Manila Golf & Country Club, Ince. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Cage Nea. 2620, Maren 2O, 1977, this Coturk ede:

we

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO.

fn the oem es case rs nok wrthout a precedent, ase of Hanila Golf & Country Club, Inc. vs. Commisstoner of Internal Revenue, Cr A Cage No, Beso, Nerech 2a LPP ,, this Honorehble Court held as Toad Leow:

Since, as etatecd above, the are or the President Dax eant rrmed that Sectron ae oF Howse Brill No. LET 39, TOM Repubkie Met Neo, 811, inserting wu a, Mas ction 284A, waz one of the ctions vetoed hy the Presicent hy veto me gqe dated August PPE9, vetoing certain sectieans the sard ball (Fh. "NYO, rt nat been or eERECED that tlie Presaideangé "2 veto mas orerr redder hh y thirds of each House or Conare: vat rye evercame the Pr ke mart yrean fe fomA, fe wart .

bhe ab thre Present os ve tes oF r the reqiyrred namber of wotes vetoed brilis as prowsteecd In Pram 2POCL), Artrele VI, of the 9 Conastatutron. The wecearedds the case do not show that tryo~ ager eec he par hae Pre rope veto of Peppometermnt har olen fobymrgecated alleqged or the Consohydat ect Brifoomas overrgedden by the em RUT CS nim bers oF votes oy we decd brides, Inasmuch Ae Congr e eardential veto or Pfm~A, the provarse in TOE, dyed nok oOverr rede the arily did nat become a Jam.

Consequently, Peat roy L2f--A ehoule not TOrm part oF the Natrtonal Internal Revenue Code, arqument aping notioe «is the respondent that “a Not resolution in Favor af petitioner would mean the Toss of millions or pesos ta the government, ane oe

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO. 3406 we, there waute be “Helduge of ofares For pertond, Far yomhere rn the gr ovat Pane & proawe tung pla a cept ry Pe LT OT Y White rb ge ak utmast rmpor tance that the Government sheuld not resort fo #4 preposed provrsyon of 8&8 reyentiie bodd whieh did not become ai Lay t eONnNance the cokleactror or CANOE» The Yainancrtal exsiqencr1es or the Government art force ne Justafreation for sustarning the cment of a tax lewvred under S construction of & Jaw, meres fy E odin der 6a oprevdsron of a PE OTe brid mdr rc te Nas beer vetogd by the President.

ror Haw ire reached the coon Bhges szron thats , x or Howse " nom Peprihd yo Ack rebing & Ifo Al ch peans 7% oF mhy Ry fT Ne, Her. © FLO, ane cet Yor doe Pagerarry fs Lo and 7 tiie Mabronal Internal Revenue Code, was vetoed by the Presfdent yo divs veto message lated Atreaust Y, Congress Ard moh erie yen voce the per dentral vetos ane 2 trom TPP~A did net beeoame a Fam ana shoreded mat therefore « Form ar t of . the Natdtonal Internal Revenue Codes” Ce IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to refund to petitioner, German Club, Inc., the caterer’s tax paid in the total amount af P52,937.39, without interest.

No pronouncement as to costs.

WE CONCUR:

AMANTE PYILLER

Myce tcl irtep clusedepes NY

7. REYES fiaeorm date: Wueclcpe a x vw .

~

DECISION -

CTA CASE NM. 2606

CER T1F I CA F IT ON

I her elyy cer tal fy thak bliss: ese is dens Wes reeohec after cue coneudhabien amene the members of the Caur t of Pec Apple a 1s am accor dane e with Section 1S, frbhiele VITT of the Constituhiearn,

AMANTE FILIER

Pree dcdafie Juice Caur ko oof Tas Appeadlea oe