CTA Case No. 3666

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 3&66 - 2 - 4.

THAT on January 17, 1983, peti- tioner r eceived deficiency business tax assessment and demand No . 01-25-908-77-82 f or taxable year 1977 totalling ~5,139,281 . 30, computed as follows:

"Gross taxable sales/receipts per return

Adjustments:

Soriamont Steamship

Management Fees

Conmission Insurance

Haulage & handling Administrative fees

Building Operation

Special Service

Management Service·

Aviation

~41,604,908 . 00 17,639,799.00 582,635.00 105. 00 176,6517. uo 889 ,845.00 1,447 , 320.00 967,514.00 ~63' 308 '783. 00

X

3% ~ 1,899 , 263.40 3% and 6.% Tax due thereon Less: 'I'ax already paid Deficiency tax due 50% Surcharge due thereon

Interest

Compromise Penalty for late payment Total Amount Due & Collectil:i= ~6, 487 '966. 00 i:"i6,487 ,956.00

X

6%

Iii

389,277.96 5 .

THAT r espondent expressly allowed petitioner to protest the demanded assess- ment within 30 days after receipt otherwise he would consider it f inal and unappealable1 6.

THAT petitioner by counsel in a letter dated February 8, 1983 protested the aforestated assessment demanded by r espondent who received it on Feb . 9, 1983; 7.

THAT on July 22 , 1983 , petitioner r ece i ved t he final decision of respondent deny i ng completely the protest of petitioner 1 8 .

THAT the deficiency assessment demanded and the decision denying it are i llegal and erroneous and not supported by law and facts, x x x:

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

110

Iii _____ _

i!i2, 288 , 541. 30 423,420.39 ill ,865,12l. 00 932,560.50 2,341,099.80 s.oo.oo PS 139 281. 30" ==:!:===:!:====== ,.

DECISION

CTA CASE NO. 3666 - 3 - In moving for the dismissal of t he pe t ition on the ground of lac k of jur i sdiction, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue contends : "Respondent has: not yet rendered a decision on the protest of petitioner . Hence , petitioner' s appeal to t his Court, wi thou t await ing the decision of respon- . dent on its protest , is premature : conse- q uently , this Honorable Cour t acquires no jurisdiction over this case .

As the Supreme

Court sa i d in the Villa c ase, "the juris- diction of the Tax Court is to review by appeal d e cisions of the Commissioner o f I n t ~rnal Revenue on disputed assessme nts . The Tax Court is a court of s pecial juris- dict i on .

As such , it can take cognizance only of suc h matters as are clearly within its j urisdict ion ." (Commissioner vs . Villa , infra. )

Before us for resolution is respondent ' s "Motion to D1 smis:s" fil ed by him on March ~3, 1984 alleging , among others , that petitioner without awaiting the decision of responden t on its protest date d Febr uar y B, 1983 interposed i t s appeal to this Court . Hence , peti- tioner ' s appeal is premature and the Court acquires no jurisdiction on the pe·tition for revie·w. Petitioner however interposed its opposition t o the said motion on March 16, 1~84 , c ontending that a final decision of r espondent d e nying its protest has been received by 1t on July 22 , 1983. Hence , the appeal is no t prematurely fil ed , and the Court has j urisdiction over the case .

The law conferring j urisdiction on the Court of Tax Appeals is fou nd in Sect ion 7 o f Republic Act 111 • j

I

DECIS ION -

CTA CASE NO . 36&6 - 4 - No . 1125 , the per tinent p ar t of which states: " Sec. 7.

J uri sd iction.-

The Court

o f Tax Appe a ls shal l exercise 'exclusive appellate j ur isdict i o n to review by appeal as herein provided - (1)

Decisions of the Commissioner

of I nterrial Revenue in case s invol ving d isputed assessments , refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges , penalties i mposed in relation thereto, o r othe r matters a r ising under t he Nat i onal Internal Revenue Code or other law o r part of the l aw administered by t he Bureau of Internal Revenue ;

( 2)

XXX

XXX

XXX

( 3 )

XXX

XXX

XXX

The Cour t o f Tax Appeals is a court of special jurisdiction.

As s uc~ 1 i t can take cognizance only o f such matters as are clear l y within i ts j urisdiction . The j urisdiction of a court to take cognizance of a case should be c onfer red clearly and should not be deemed to exist on mere i mpl i c ation, or affirmation of a party to the action , specially so with this Cou r t which is a specialized court of limited j urisd i ction .

(Victorias ·

Milling Co ., Inc . vs . The Philippine Por ts Authority , CTA Case No . 3466, October 26 , 198 3, ce r tiorar i denied in G.R. No . 66381 , Feb . 29, 1984; see· also Amilbangsa v . Angangco, CTA Case No . 255, May 7, 1956.) It is worth noting that the word "dec ision " as appearing in Section 7(1) ?f Republi~ Act No . 1125 has been interpreted by the Sup r eme Court in the case of Commissioner o f I n t e rnal 112 'I

DECISION

CTA CASE NO . 3666 - 5 - Revenue vs . Leonardo s . Vi lla, et al ., January 2 , 1968, 22 SCRA 3 , to mean the decision of t he Commissioner of. Inte r nal Revenue on the protest of t he taxpayer against the assessment.

The Supreme Court f urther stated: "The same interpretati on fi nds support in Section 11 of Republic Act 1125, which s tates:

Sec . 11 .

Who may appeal : . effect of appeal . - Any person , assoc1at1on or corporation adversely affected by ~ decision or ruling o f t he Collector (now Commissioner ) of Internal Revenue,

the Collector

( Com~i ssi oner ) o f Customs o r any pr ovincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the cour t of Tax Appeals with i n thirty days after the receipt of such decision or r uling .

(Emphasis supplied) - ~ Note that the law uses the word "decisions" , not "assessments" , thus further i ndicat i ng t he l egislative intention to subject to judicial review the decision of the Commissioner on the protest agains t an assessment but not the assessment itself."

(Unde r lining supplied.)

Petitioner's allegat i on t hat a decision has been r endered by respondent on its protest and the same has bee~ received by it on July 22, 1 Y83 is not substantiated by the evidence .

Records of the Bureau of Internal

Revenue pert inen t t o this case do not show that a deci- sion has been rendered by respondent in connection with petitioner'~ protest.

Ne ithe r is there a copy of the alleged decision attached to the petition f or review as required by Section 2 , Rule 5 , of the Rules of Court of Tax Appeals .

Even more , when the said motion t o dismi ss 113 j• .... )

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 3666 - 6 - o f responden t was heard by t he Court on Apr i l l6, 1 984 , pe titioner failed to present t he alleged decision which it daimed to have received on J uly 22, 198 3.

Respon-

dent Commissi oner of Internal Revenue having averred in his motion to di smi s s tha t he has not yet rendered a decision on the protest o f petitioner , the bare alle- gation of petitioner tha t on July 22 , 1983 it received the final deci sion o f respondent denying completely i ts protest, · un a ccompanied by adequate evidence , has t here- fore no weight wi th the Court . Under these circumstances , we believe tha t no decision was rendered by respondent in this cas e which is appealalble to this Cour t. The appeal therefore is premature and the Court has no j ur1sdict1on to enterta in the instant case .

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby dis- missed a t peti tioner 's costs.

WE CONCUR :

/J

~OffA"'­

CON~_. ROAQUIN ssociate Judge 114 G..M~

AMANTE F

Pr esid ing