Cir VS Transitions
Cir VS Transitions
Cir VS Transitions
THIRD DIVISION
SYLLABUS
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
1
Rollo, pp. 30-63.
2
Id. at 71-84. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ma. Belen
M. Ringpis-Liban and concurred in by Presiding Justice Roman G. Del
Rosario (with separate concurring opinion, pp. 85-92) and Associate Justices
Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova,
Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, and Amelia R.
Contangco-Manalastas of the Court of Tax Appeals, Quezon City.
3
Id. at 94-96. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ma.
Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and concurred in by Presiding Justice Roman G.
Del Rosario and associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista,
Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, and
Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla of the Court of Tax Appeals, Quezon City.
4
Id. at 97-121. The Decision, docketed as CTA Case No. 8442, was penned
by Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy and concurred in by Presiding Justice
Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla.
5
Id. at 72.
6
Id.
Supreme Court E-Library
7
Id. at 32.
8
Id. at 150-151.
9
Id. at 32-33 and 152-153.
10
Id. at 72.
11
Id. at 73.
12
Id.
Supreme Court E-Library
13
Id. at 73 and 158-159. The total sum indicated in the Formal Letter
of Demand is P19,614,438.97 but the correct total sum is P19,701,849.68.
14
Id. at 34.
15
Id. at 73.
16
Id. at 74.
Supreme Court E-Library
17
Id. at 120.
18
Id. at 123-127.
19
Id. at 83.
20
Id. at 96.
21
Id. at 283-313.
22
Id. at 37.
Supreme Court E-Library
23
Id. at 38.
24
Id. at 37-38.
25
Id. at 56-57.
26
Id. at 297.
27
Id. at 300.
28
Id. at 302-303.
Supreme Court E-Library
29
Id. at 304 and 309.
30
Id. at 302.
31
Id. at 304-305.
32
Id. at 308.
33
Id. at 307.
Supreme Court E-Library
34
Id. at 77 and 112-115.
35
Id. at 85-92.
Supreme Court E-Library
that the year being audited in the FAN has already prescribed at the
time such FAN was mailed on December 2, 2008. Respondent even
stated in that protest that it received the letter (referring to the FAN
dated November 28, 2008) on December 5, 2008, which accordingly
is five (5) days after the waiver it issued had prescribed. The foregoing
narration plainly does not suggest that respondent has any objection
to its previously executed waivers. By the principle of estoppel,
respondent should not be allowed to question the validity of the
waivers. 36
36
Id. at 90-91.
37
774 Phil. 428 (2015) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
38
Id. at 442.
Supreme Court E-Library
39
Id. at 444-445.
40
Id. at 445.
41
Rollo, p. 124.
42
Id. at 184-188.
43
Id. at 91.
44
Id. at 167.
Supreme Court E-Library
45
Id. at 44-45.
46
Id. at 45.
47
Id. at 118.
48
Id. at 119.
Supreme Court E-Library
49
TAX CODE, Sec. 228; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Menguito,
587 Phil. 234 (2008) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
50
Revenue Regulation No. 12-99, Sec. 3.1.2.
51
See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Metro Star Superama, Inc.,
652 Phil. 172 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
Supreme Court E-Library
52
Revenue Regulation No. 12-99, Sec. 3.1.4.
53
TAX CODE, Sec. 248 (A)(3).
54
TAX CODE, Sec. 249.
*
Designated Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2514 dated November
8, 2017.