[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1985.7.1.(755),852]
Article 19 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1609 of May 1, 1984)
Article 19(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1609 of May 1, 1984) delegates only the method of calculating the constructive purchase tax to be deducted under Article 17(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is its parent law, to the enforcement decree, and the "ratio" which is to be multiplied by the value of agricultural products, etc. which are the basis for calculating the amount to be deducted under the Enforcement Rule, is to define the constructive purchase tax outside the scope delegated to the enforcement decree, and is null and void in conflict with the delegation scope
Article 17(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 62(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 19(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of
Supreme Court Decision 84Nu539 Decided March 12, 1985
Plaintiff
Head of Seogsan Tax Office
Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu48 delivered on July 19, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff denied the constructive purchase tax deduction and the disposition imposing the value-added tax in this case on the ground that the non-permanent purchase tax amount that the non-permanent purchase tax amount of the non-permanent purchase was not deducted pursuant to Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act at the time of the second-term value-added tax return for the 1982 period for the plaintiff's business of manufacturing and selling rice with rice and the non-permanent oil was paid by deducting the constructive purchase tax amount for the non-permanent purchase under the provisions of Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act. In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is just and it does not find any unlawful ground for failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.
In addition, Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that, where an entrepreneur engaged in a manufacturing business imposes a tax on goods manufactured or processed with agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products, or forestry products supplied with value-added tax exemption, the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree may be deducted as the input tax amount. Accordingly, Article 62 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the amount calculated by multiplying the value of the agricultural products provided with value-added tax exemption by the rate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy for each type of business, and the amount calculated by the rate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy for each type of business shall be deducted. Article 19 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 1609 of May 1, 1984) provides that the above rate shall be 10/110 (5/105 where the goods are supplied for exportation) and the above provision of Article 17 (2) of the same Act provides that the provision of this case shall not be amended to the extent of fair purchase tax exemption.
Therefore, all arguments are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)