Cebu Mitsumi, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8531. August 5, 2015.] CEBU MITSUMI, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent. RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS , J p : For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, 1 filed through registered mail on June 8, 2015, and received by this Court on June 11, 2015. Petitioner filed its Comment/Opposition 2 on July 2, 2015. Subject of the motion for reconsideration is this Court's Decision, dated May 21, 2015, which disposed of the case, as follows: "In the cases of Sony, De la Salle University, University of Santo Tomas Hospital , letters of authority were issued prior to the assessment which were subsequently declared void. In the instant case, no letter of authority was issued prior to the investigation and assessment. With more reason, the assessment in the instant case is void having been issued without an LOA. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, Assessment Notice No. 123-IT-20-2009-2012-05-27 is hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN." 3 DETACa Respondent now argues that petitioner is already barred by laches in assailing the validity of the assessment considering petitioner's failure to raise the issue of lack of letter of authority despite several opportunities to do so. Petitioner counter-argues that an assessment issued without a Letter of Authority is absolutely null and void, and that estoppel by laches cannot make legally valid a void assessment. In the instant case, the Court found that no Letter of Authority was issued. 4 In the absence of such Letter of Authority, any assessment issued is a nullity. It has been consistently held that a void assessment bears no valid fruit. 5 This Court cannot countenance respondent's argument that the doctrine of estoppel applies and that petitioner has already lost the opportunity to question the absence of the Letter of Authority. Respondent's arguments would have the effect of giving validity to the questioned assessment, which are null and void. This result is not the intent of the doctrine of estoppel. Estoppel cannot validate an act that contravenes law or is against public policy. Thus, the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in the instant case as the questioned assessments are null and void. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. HEITAD SO ORDERED . (SGD.) AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr. and Caesar A. Casanova, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 1206-1211. 2. Docket, pp. 1216-1221. 3. Docket, pp. 1204-1205. 4. Decision, p. 6; docket, p. 1203. 5. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Azucena T. Reyes , G.R. Nos. 159694 & 163581, January 27, 2006.