Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
1/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
456
PERALTA,J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of
the Decision1 dated October 25, 2005 and Resolution2 dated
January 20, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R.
SP No. 58061 which set aside the Decision3 dated January
4, 2000 and Resolution4 dated March 3, 2000 of the Court
of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 5777 and declared
Assessment Notice No. 000004793407 dated March 27,
1998 to be final, executory and demandable.
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
On March 27, 1998, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (CIR) issued Assessment Notice No. 000004793
4075 against Lascona Land Co., Inc. (Lascona) informing
the latter of its alleged deficiency income tax for the year
1993 in the amount of P753,266.56.
Consequently, on April 20, 1998, Lascona filed a letter
protest, but was denied by Norberto R. Odulio, Officerin
Charge (OIC), Regional Director, Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Revenue Region No. 8, Makati City, in his Letter6
dated March 3, 1999, which reads, thus:
xxxx
Subject: LASCONA LAND CO., INC.
1993 Deficiency Income Tax
_______________
1Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. PerlasBernabe (now a member of this
Court), with Associate Justices Remedios SalazarFernando and Hakim S.
Abdulwahid, concurring, Rollo, pp. 1320.
2Id., at p. 21.
3Rollo, pp. 111118.
4Id., at pp. 119120.
5Id., at p. 102.
6Id., at p. 103.
457
457
Madam,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000150552c19576b726e57000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ395/?username=Guest
2/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
458
3/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
reads, thus:
If the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative
fails to act on the taxpayers protest within one hundred eighty
(180) days from date of submission, by the taxpayer, of the
required documents in support of his protest, the taxpayer may
appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from
the lapse of the said 180day period otherwise, the assessment
shall become final, executory and demandable.
459
4/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
460
5/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
days from the lapse of the 180day period or (2) await the
final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed
assessment even beyond the 180day periodin which
case, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision within 30
days from the receipt of the said decision. Corollarily,
petitioner posits that when the Commissioner failed to act
on its protest within the 180day period, it had the option
to await for the final decision of the Commissioner on the
protest, which it did.
The petition is meritorious.
Section 228 of the NIRC is instructional as to the
remedies of a taxpayer in case of the inaction of the
Commissioner on the protested assessment, to wit:
SEC.228.Protesting of Assessment.x x x
xxxx
_______________
ternal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable
law provides a specific period for action: Provided, that in case of disputed
assessments, the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one
hundred eighty dayperiod under Section 228 of the National Internal revenue
Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of allowing the taxpayer to appeal his
case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the tax case Provided, further, that should
the taxpayer opt to await the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue on the disputed assessments beyond the one hundred eighty dayperiod
abovementioned, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision to the Court under
Section 3(a), Rule 8 of these Rules and Provided, still further, that in the case of
claims for refund of taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file
a petition for review with the Court prior to the expiration of the twoyear period
under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (December 15, 2005)
461
461
6/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
462
7/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
463
8/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
464
9/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
465
10/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
466
11/12
10/11/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667
REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Abad, Villarama, Jr.,** and
Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and
set aside.
Notes.Taxes being the lifeblood of the government
should be collected promptly No court shall have the
authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of
any national internal revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by
the National Internal Revenue Code. (Angeles City vs.
Angeles Electric Corporation, 622 SCRA 43 [2010]).
Taxes, being burdens, are not to be presumed beyond
what the applicable statute expressly and clearly declares
While it is true that taxes are the lifeblood of the
government, it has been held that their assessment and
collection should be in accordance with law as any
arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government
itself. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Filinvest
Development Corporation, 654 SCRA 56 [2011]).
o0o
_______________
** Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice
Estela M. PerlasBernabe, per Raffle dated February 29, 2012.
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000150552c19576b726e57000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ395/?username=Guest
12/12