02 Philippine Dream Company Inc. vs. CIR
02 Philippine Dream Company Inc. vs. CIR
02 Philippine Dream Company Inc. vs. CIR
FIRST DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Antecedents
Rollo, p. 135.
Id. at 237.
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 216044
August 27, 2020
PDCI received the notices on April 10, 2006. On May 10, 2006,
PDCI interposed its protest5 against the VAT assessment, claiming it
was not dissolved, nor its properties disposed of, particularly its vessel
M/V Philippine Dream. There being no such disposition, it could not
have incurred any VATable transaction as a result. It, nonetheless,
signified its willingness to pay its tax liabilities, and on this score,
prayed that the penalties be waived. On May 18, 2006, it paid the
EWT assessment but only in the amount of P301,823 .34 including
interest.6
- over -
51-Ai
Id. at 155-156.
4 Id. at 131 -134.
5 Id. at 136-138.
6 Id. at 59, CTA En Banc Decision.
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 216044
August 27, 2020
- over -
51-At
Id.
Id.
9
Id. at 142.
IO id. at 143-144.
II
Id. at 151.
12
id. at 152.
13
Id. at 140.
14
Id. at 153-154.
15
Id. at 60-61.
RESOLUTION 4 G .R. No. 216044
August 27, 2020
- over -
51-Ai
The CTA went further to explain that even when the Final
Notice Before Seizure was considered as a denial of PDCI's protest
and the thirty-day appeal period was reckoned from notice thereof, the
appeal was still filed out time. It also refused to allow the petition
insofar it questioned the auction sale, again, for having been filed out
of time.
By Decision dated July 25, 2014 in CTA EB Case No. 986, the
CTA En Banc affirmed, with modification. It ruled that the Final
Notice Before Seizure which PDCI received on January 4, 2007 was
deemed a denial of its protest. PDCI, therefore, had thirty (30) days
period therefrom or until February 3, 2007 within which to appeal. As
it was though, it belatedly filed its appeal on October 31, 2007.26
- over -
Sl-A1
23
Id. at 80.
24 Penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr. and conctm-ed in by Associate Justice
Caesar A. Casanova and Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla.
25
Id. at 123.
26
Id. at 56.
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 216044
August 27, 2020
For its part, the CIR, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) affirms that the Final Notice Before Seizure was already the
decision denying the protest; the thirty-day period for appeal should
be reckoned from PDCI' s receipt thereof. PDCI' s requests for referral
of the case back to the Office if the Regional Director after its receipt
of the aforesaid Final Notice Before Seizure did not toll the running of
the thirty-day period for appeal.
Issue
Ruling
- over -
51-At
27
Id. at 80-84.
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 216044
August 27, 2020
- over -
51-Ai
RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 216044
August 27, 2020
In Lascona Land Co., Inc. v. CIR, 28 the Court declared that the
law gives the taxpayer two (2) remedies or modes for disputing a tax
assessment, viz. :
Notably, PDCI's claim that the CIR did not act on its protest
was belied by the latter's subsequent issuances demanding and
enforcing payment of the former's tax deficiencies:
Except for the PCL which PDCI denied to have received, all the
aforementioned letters were actually received and acknowledged by
PDCI. Verily, PDCI cannot deny that the CIR did act on the
company's protest.
- over -
51-Ai
29
Id. at 112, CTA-Second Division Decision.
30
413 Phil. 376 (2001).
RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 216044
August 27, 2020
Thus, applying the above cited case to the present will lead
Us to the conclusion that there was a denial in this case.
- over -
51-Ai
- over -
51-At
33 Id. at 83, CT A En Banc Resolution .
34 550 Phil. 3 I 6, 324 (2007).
RESOLUTION 12 G.R. No. 216044
August 27, 2020
SO ORDERED."
by:
- over -
LITIGATION DIVISION
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Room 501, 5/F BIR National Office
Building, Agham Road, Diliman
1101 Quezon City
UR