| “Public of > Philippine Court of Tax Appeals Ova on City Ylita Enterprises, Inc vs. Ceteas Case No, 3181 Commissioner of Internal Hie

DECISION

At bar is respondent's “Motion To Dismiss filed on Pebruary 10, 1981 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of this Court to take cognizance of petitioner's appeal, It appears that on December 24, 1580, peti- tioner filed a petition for review in thie Court, élleging that in a letter dated November 19, 1980, respondent assessed againet and demanded from peti- tioner payment of fixed and percentage taxes for 1974 in the amount of £23,463.41, which letter was received by the latter on Lecember 4, 1980.

In @ letter dated December &, 19860, petitioner protested the assesament, stating that it is not aware of any non-payment of such taxes for the year 1974 and that the action to collect the same 2

Cy

25 fa ww

DECISION =

Cf, CASE NO. 3181 o- 2 m= had eitaady pivecrited. Not having received yet any answer or reply to its letter dated December 9, 1980, petitioner appealed to this Court.

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or net this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance: of petitioner's appeal.

The law involved is found in Sections 7 and 11 of Republic Act 1125, the pertinent provisions of which read:

ofC. 7. Jurisdiction. - rhe Court of Tax »ppeals shall] exercise exclusive appel- late jurisdiction to review by appeal as herein provided =

(1) Decisions of the Collector* of Int- ernal kevenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of Internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties im~ posed in relation therets, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of the law edmi- nistered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue? (Underiining supplied.)

(2) x x »*

(3) «x x x SEC. 11, who may appeal; effect of appeal.~ Any pergon, association or corporation ad - versely affected by a decision or ruling of the Cvllector* of Internal ievenue, the Coll- ectoz* of Customs or any provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file en appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of such deci- Bion or ruling. (Underscoring supplied.)

vrom the above-quoted provisions, we note that the law uses the word "decisions", not ee ml Tab mhbtind | SADA. 22

*Now Commissioner

Gu Pa

& boone

DECISION -

CIA CASE NO. 3181 "assessments", indicating the legislative inten~ tion to subject to judicial review the decision of the Commissioner on the protest against an assessment and not the assessment itself.

The word “decisions” has been interpreted in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue va. Leonardo &, Villa, et al., GeR. No. L-23988, Jan. 2, 1968, 22 SCRA 3, to mean the decision. of the Commissioner of internal Revenue on the pro-~ test of the taxpayer ayainst the assessment.

In the casa at bar, #8 admitted in the peti- tion for review of petitioner, respondent has not yet rendered a decision on the protest of petitioner against the assessment in question, Hence, being prematurely filed, this Court cannot take cogni- zance of petitioner's appeal.

we said thus in the case of Cinema Audio, ths vs. The acting Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case NO. 2806, January 16, 1978, (Certiorari denied in GeRe NO. L-48726, September 13, 1978):

“xxx Where @ taxpayer questions an assessment or denand-letter and asks the Commissioner to reconsider or cancel the same because he (the taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the assess~ ment or demand-letter becomes a disputed or contested assessment that the Commis- sioner mus* decide, and the taxpayer can

DECISION =

CTA CASE Nu. 3181 appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals only upon receipt of the decision of the Com- missioner on the disputed or contested assessment. The decision on the request for reconsideration is the decision which is appealable to this Court. (5t. Stephen's Association and St. Stephen's Chinese Girls' Gehool vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 104 Phil. 314; Baguio Country Club Corporation vs. Collector of Internal Kevenue, et 4l., L-11419, April 22, 1959, 105 Fhil., i269, unpub.; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cebu vs. Collector of Internal Kevenue, L-16683, January 31, 1962, 4 SCRA 279; Commissioner of Internal Kevenue vs. Lilia Yusay Gonzales, L-19495, November 24, 1966, 18 SCRA 757; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs, Villa, L~23988, January 2, 1968, 22 Sun. $6.)"

XX XXX XXX.

“xxx Since in the case at bar petitioner appealed from the assessment or demand-letter of respvondent without waiting for his decision on its request for reconsideration or reinves- tigation, the appesl was premature and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain said appeal," WHERGPORE, petitioner's appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, 5Q UxDEkEev.

suezon City, Metro Manila, sugust 31, 1981, AMA WT 2 fete/

Presiding Judge

WE CONCUR:

kx NX, REYES associate Judge