[특별소비세등부과처분취소][하집1988(1),537]
Whether a taxpayer can seek revocation of the disposition of imposition of the special consumption tax immediately without a revised return for the reason that he/she paid the special consumption tax by filing a voluntary declaration (negative)
The special consumption tax is, in principle, a tax that is imposed on the tax return method, and if a taxpayer voluntarily files a tax return or pays it, there is no tax authority.
Articles 9, 10, 11, and 13 of the Special Consumption Tax Act; Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 1 of the attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;
Second Electronic Warning Corporation
Head of Seoul Customs Office
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 2,355,090, the special consumption tax amount of KRW 706,520 against the Plaintiff on August 27, 1986, shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
원고가 1986.8.25. 일본국으로부터 폐쇄회로방식의 칼라 카메라 10세트(이하 이 사건 카메라라고 한다)를 수입하고 피고에게 그 수입신고를 하면서 이 사건 카메라는 특별소비세법시행령 제1조 의 별표 1 제2종 제11호 나목에서 특별소비세가 부과되지 아니하는 품목으로 규정된 공업용 텔레비젼카메라에 해당한다는 이유로 관세, 그 방위세, 부가가치세의 과세표준, 세율, 납부세액을 신고하고 특별소비세 및 그 방위세에 관하여는 납부할 세액이 없는 것으로 신고하였다가 같은 달 27. 특별소비세 및 그 방위세의 과세표준세율과 납부세액으로 특별소비세 금 2,355,090원, 그 방위세 금 706,706,520원의 수정신고를 하고 위 각 세금을 납부하였던 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.
On August 27, 1986, the Plaintiff: (a) imposed a special consumption tax of KRW 2,355,090 on the Plaintiff; and (b) the defense tax of KRW 706,520 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant tax disposition”); (b) on the premise that the Plaintiff imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 706,520 on the Plaintiff; (c) the Plaintiff asserted that the instant tax disposition was filed with the instant tax claim to seek revocation on the grounds that the instant tax disposition was unlawful, even though the instant Kamer is an industrial television camera that is prescribed as an item that is not subject to the special consumption tax under Article 1 subparag. 11 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act, which is the item subject to the special consumption tax
Therefore, this case’s taxation disposition exists on August 17, 1986. According to Articles 9(2), 10(2) and 11(1) of the Special Consumption Tax Act, a taxpayer under Article 3 subparag. 3 (the person carrying out the taxable goods from the bonded area under the provisions of the Customs Act) shall be deemed to have filed a return on the tax base when he files an import declaration with the head of the customs office under the jurisdiction of the bonded area. The taxpayer shall pay the special consumption tax at the time of obtaining an import license for the goods taken out of the bonded area under Article 9, and the head of the competent tax office or customs office shall determine or correct the tax base return if he fails to submit the revised return under Article 9, or if there is an error or omission in the tax base return within the scope of 10,000 won, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have filed a revised return on the special consumption tax within the scope of 10,000 won or less, and the taxpayer shall be deemed to have filed a revised return on the special consumption tax base.
Therefore, the defendant did not make the tax disposition against the plaintiff by the ordinary collection method, and the defendant cannot be viewed as the tax disposition that received the special consumption tax of this case and its defense tax from the plaintiff. Thus, there is no tax disposition that is the object of the revocation lawsuit of this case.
Therefore, even if it is found that the Plaintiff was not liable to pay the special consumption tax and its defense tax because the instant camera fell under the industrial television camera, it shall be dismissed, regardless of the fact that the Plaintiff again filed a revised return on the tax base that the instant camera constitutes non-taxation pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that in the event that the Defendant does not accept it, the Plaintiff may seek the revocation of the disposition of refusal, or claim a return of unjust enrichment under the civil law against the government, or seek the revocation of the disposition of refusal. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the revocation on the premise that the instant disposition of taxation exists, is unlawful without examining it, and therefore, it shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by
Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Judge)