You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

179343

January 21, 2010

FISHWEALTH CANNING COR ORATION, Petitioner, vs. CO!!ISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE"EN#E, Respondent. $ECISION CAR IO !ORALES, J.: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent), by Letter of Authority dated May !, "###, ordered the e$amination of the internal revenue ta$es for the ta$able year %%% of &ish'ealth Cannin( Corp. (petitioner). The investi(ation dis)losed that petitioner 'as liable in the amount of P",*%+,,"!.,, representin( in)ome ta$, value added ta$ (-AT), 'ithholdin( ta$ defi)ien)ies and other mis)ellaneous defi)ien)ies. Petitioner eventually settled these obli(ations on Au(ust *#, "###." .n Au(ust "+, "###, respondent reinvesti(ated petitioner/s boo0s of a))ounts and other re)ords of internal revenue ta$es )overin( the same period for the purpose of 'hi)h it issued a subpoena du)es te)um re1uirin( petitioner to submit its re)ords and boo0s of a))ounts. Petitioner re1uested the )an)ellation of the subpoena on the (round that the same set of do)uments had previously been e$amined. As petitioner did not heed the subpoena, respondent thereafter filed a )riminal )omplaint a(ainst petitioner for violation of 2e)tions + ()) and "!! of the %%3 Internal Revenue Code, 'hi)h )omplaint 'as dismissed for insuffi)ien)y of eviden)e.* Respondent sent, on Au(ust !, "##*, petitioner a &inal Assessment 4oti)e of %n&o'( )a* and "AT +(,%&%(n&%(totalin( P!3,+%3,**!.3+ for the ta$able year %%%,5 'hi)h assessment petitioner )ontested by letter of 2eptember "*, "##*.+ Respondent thereafter issued a &inal 6e)ision on 6isputed Assessment dated Au(ust ", "##+, 'hi)h petitioner re)eived on Au(ust 5, "##+, denyin( its letter of protest, apprisin( it of its %n&o'( )a* and "AT .%a/%.%)%(- in the amounts of 7P +,*%!,%#+."5 and P!*,!,,,5*5.5# 8si)9, respe)tively, for the ta$able year %%%,7! and re1uestin( the immediate payment thereof, 7in)lusive of penalties in)ident to delin1uen)y.7 Respondent added that if petitioner disa(reed, it may appeal to the Court of Ta$ Appeals (CTA) 7'ithin thirty (*#) days from date of re)eipt hereof, other'ise our said defi)ien)y in)ome and value:added ta$es assessments shall be)ome final, e$e)utory, and demandable.73 Instead of appealin( to the CTA, petitioner filed, on 2eptember , "##+, a Letter of Re)onsideration dated Au(ust * , "##+., ;y a Preliminary Colle)tion Letter dated 2eptember !, "##+, respondent demanded payment of petitioner/s ta$ liabilities,% dra'in( petitioner to file on .)tober "#, "##+ a Petition for Revie' # before the CTA. In his Ans'er, respondent ar(ued, amon( other thin(s, that the petition 'as filed out of time 'hi)h ar(ument the &irst 6ivision of the CTA upheld and a))ordin(ly dismissed the petition. " Petitioner filed a Motion for Re)onsideration * 'hi)h 'as denied. 5 The Resolution denyin( its motion for re)onsideration 'as re)eived by petitioner on .)tober * , "##!. + .n 4ovember " , "##!, petitioner filed a petition for revie' before the CTA <n ;an) ! 'hi)h, by 6e)ision 3 of =uly +, "##3, held that the petition before the &irst 6ivision, as 'ell as that before it, 'as filed out of time. >en)e, the present petition, , petitioner ar(uin( that the CTA <n ;an) erred in holdin( that the petition it filed before the CTA &irst 6ivision as 'ell as that filed before it (CTA <n ;an)) 'as filed out of time. The petition is bereft of merit. 2e)tion "", of the %%3 Ta$ Code provides that an assessment $ $ $ may be protested administratively by filin( a re1uest for re)onsideration or reinvesti(ation 'ithin thirty (*#) days from re)eipt of the assessment in su)h form and manner as may be pres)ribed by implementin( rules and

re(ulations. ?ithin si$ty (!#) days from filin( of the protest, all relevant supportin( do)uments shall have been submitted@ other'ise, the assessment shall be)ome final. If the protest is denied in 'hole or in part, or is not a)ted upon 'ithin one hundred ei(hty ( ,#) days from submission of do)uments, the ta$payer adversely affe)ted by the de)ision or ina)tion may appeal to the Court of Ta$ Appeals 'ithin thirty (*#) days from re)eipt of the said de)ision, or from the lapse of the one hundred ei(hty ( ,#):day period@ other'ise, the de)ision shall be)ome final, e$e)utory and demandable. (unders)orin( supplied)
1avvphi1

In the )ase at bar, petitioner/s administrative protest 'as denied by &inal 6e)ision on 6isputed Assessment dated Au(ust ", "##+ issued by respondent and 'hi)h petitioner re)eived on Au(ust 5, "##+. Ander the above:1uoted 2e)tion "", of the %%3 Ta$ Code, petitioner had *# days to appeal respondent/s denial of its protest to the CTA. 2in)e petitioner re)eived the denial of its administrative protest on Au(ust 5, "##+, it had until 2eptember *, "##+ to file a petition for revie' before the CTA 6ivision. It filed one, ho'ever, on .)tober "#, "##+, hen)e, it 'as filed out of time. &or a motion for re)onsideration of the denial of the administrative protest does not toll the *#:day period to appeal to the CTA. .n petitioner/s final )ontention that it has a meritorious )ase in vie' of the dismissal of the above:mentioned )riminal )ase filed a(ainst it for violation of the %%3 Internal Revenue Code, % the same fails. &or the )riminal )omplaint 'as instituted not to demand payment, but to penaliBe the ta$payer for violation of the Ta$ Code."# ?><R<&.R<, the petition is 6I2MI22<6. Costs a(ainst petitioner. 2. .R6<R<6. CONCHITA CAR IO !ORALES Asso)iate =usti)e

Foo)no)(CTA <n ;an) rollo, p. !#. " Id. at ! :!,. * Id. at 33:3,. 5 CIR re)ords, pp. 5,: ++. + Id. at 5#: 5". ! Rollo, p. +@ CTA <n ;an) rollo, pp. 5":5!. 3 Id. at 5!. , Id. at 3%:, @ CTA st 6ivision rollo, pp. +, ,3. % Id. at 53. # CTA st 6ivision rollo, pp. : ". Id. at 3%:%". " Id. at ""%:"**. * Id. at "*5:"*%. 5 Id. at "+*:"+5. + Id. at "+". ! CTA <n ;an) rollo, pp. *:"*. 3 Penned by CTA Asso)iate =usti)e =uanito C. CastaCeda, =r. 'ith the )on)urren)e of Presidin( =usti)e <rnesto 6. A)osta and Asso)iate =usti)es Lovell R. ;autista, <rlinda P. Ay, Caesar A. Casanova, and .l(a Palan)a:<nri1ueB. Id. at 5##:5 !. , Rollo, pp. %:*%. % Id. at "%:*5. "# -ide Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pas)or Realty and 6evelopment Corporation, *!, Phil. 3 5, 3"3 ( %%5).