Legal ResearchCIR VS. SM PRIME HOLDING INC.epublic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 183505 February 26, 2010COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA RE!ENUE, Petitioner, vs.SM PRIME "O#INGS, INC. a$% FIRST ASIA REAT& #E!EOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.D E C I S I O N#E CASTIO, J.:hen the intent of the la! is not apparent as !orded, or !hen the application of the la! !ould lead to absurdit" or in#ustice, le$islative histor" is all i%portant. In such cases, courts %a" ta&e #udicial notice of the ori$in and histor" of the la!,' the deliberations durin$ the enact%ent,( as !ell as prior la!s on the sa%e sub#ect %atter) to ascertain the true intent or spirit of the la!.*his Petition for Revie! on Certiorari under Rule +, of the Rules of Court, in relation to Republic -ct .R-/ No. 0(1(,+ see&s to set aside the -pril )2, (221 Decision, and the 3une (+, (221 Resolution4 ofthe Court of *a5 -ppeals .C*-/.Factual AntecedentsRespondents SM Pri%e 6oldin$s, Inc. .SM Pri%e/ and 7irst -sia Realt" Develop%ent Corporation .7irst -sia/ are do%estic corporations dul" or$ani8ed and e5istin$ under the la!s of the Republic of the Philippines. 9oth are en$a$ed in the business of operatin$ cine%a houses, a%on$ others.:CTA Case No. 7079On Septe%ber (4, (22), the 9ureau of Internal Revenue .9IR/ sent SM Pri%e a Preli%inar" -ssess%ent Notice .P-N/ for value added ta5 .V-*/ deficienc" on cine%a tic&et sales in the a%ount of P''0,(:4,2+:.+2 for ta5able "ear (222.1 In response, SM Pri%e filed a letter;protest dated Dece%ber ',, (22).0On Dece%ber '(, (22), the 9IR sent SM Pri%e a 7or%al