Court Oft Ax Appeals: Resolution
Court Oft Ax Appeals: Resolution
Court Oft Ax Appeals: Resolution
RESOLUTION
SO ORDERED.
tax ("EWT") for the month <Pf August 2012 had already attained
finality when petitioner filed hs juridical claim before the Court on
September 16, 2015. Petitioner': reiterates that the Preliminary Notice
issued by the Large Taxpayer~ - Document Processing and Quality
Assurance Division, with attacred Audit Results/ Assessment Notice,
does not qualify as an assessnjtent notice under Section 33 of Revenue
Regulations ("RR") No. 12-1999~, for failure to contain a definite and
I
Rules on Assessment of National Internal !Revenue Taxes, Civil Penalties and Interest and the
Extra-Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Cr~minal Violation of the Code Through Payment of a
Suggested Compromise Penalty, September~, 1999. .}
5 Republic Act No. 8424, January 1, 1998. \
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 9146
Page 3 of7
Lastly, petitioner insists ~hat it should not be held liable for the
I
is not provided by law; thus, i~, should have filed a claim for refund
on its overpayment.
2012 was remitted to the gove~nment, and the remaining portion was
kept by petitioner.
Section 228 of the 1997 NI"fC and Section 3.1.5 of RR No. 12-1999
lay out the procedure to be followed in questioning an assessment,
the pertinent provisions of whidh read:
~
RESOLUTION
CTACASENO. 9146
Page 6 of7
period, and thereafter elevate Hs claim to the CTA within thirty (30)
days from receipt of the advdrse decision. It must be remembered,
I
however, that these options are mutually exclusive and resort to one
bars application of the other.6
When petitioner appeal~d to the CIR, the CIR had only until
September 22, 2014, or one hm}dred eighty (180) days from the filing
of the protest on March 26, 20~4, to decide. Thereafter, petitioner has
until October 22, 2014 to appe~l to the CTA. Clearly, when petitioner
filed its appeal before the Co~rt on September 16, 2015, the same is
already beyond the period 4llowed by law, thus rendering the
assessment final, executory and demandable.
6 RCBC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, O.R. No. 168498, April24, 2007, 522 SCRA 144.
7 Records, Exhibit "P-8," Letter Re: Offsetting, p. 294.
s Id., Exhibit "P-8," Letter Re: Offsetting, p. 294.
9 Id., Exhibit "P-9," Request for Reconsideration': to Mr. Misajon, pp. 295-299.
SO ORDERED.
LOVEL~. BAUTISTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~.~A--'--
MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN
Associate Justice
12 Coquilla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002,434 Phil. 861.