JVC (Phils.), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1027. May 27, 2014.] (C.T.A. Case No. 7927) JVC (PHILIPPINES), INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION DEL ROSARIO , P.J p : This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated November 20, 2013) filed by petitioner on December 20, 2013, without respondent's comment despite notice. The motion seeks reconsideration of the Court En Banc's resolution promulgated on November 20, 2013, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review filed on June 20, 2013 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." Petitioner presented the following grounds in support of its motion, to wit: I. It is respectfully submitted that the Honorable Court erred when it ruled that the Third Division/Special Third Division did not commit any error of fact or law which would warrant the reversal or modification of the assailed resolutions. A. The facts of this case and arguments presented readily show that the Third Division/Special Third Division's dismissal of the Petition for Review on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is unsupported by factual and/or legal basis. B. In denying petitioner's administrative protest and subsequent appeal to the Commissioner, the Large Taxpayer's Service (LTS) clearly acted capriciously and arbitrarily and should not have been countenanced by the Third Division/Special Third Division. II. With all due respect, the Honorable Court erred when it held that the petitioner did not pursue the available remedies under Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC and, as such, the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA should be counted from the denial of the administrative protest by the LTS. cHITCS A. Petitioner availed itself of one of the available remedies under Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, which is to elevate the protest to the Commissioner. B. The 30-day period to appeal should be counted from receipt of the denial of the appeal, not from the denial of the initial administrative protest. III. With all due respect, the Honorable Court erred when it held that the ruling in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy does not apply to this case and that respondent may still question the CTA's jurisdiction. IV. With all due respect, the Honorable Court erred in disregarding principles of due process and equal protection/application of the law. A. Assuming arguendo that the appeal to the Commissioner was not properly filed, the substantial rights of petitioner cannot be cast aside on a mere technicality. Substantial compliance of procedural rules, or a liberal application thereof, is allowed in order to secure substantial justice and due process of law. B. Petitioner is entitled to equal protection and equal application of the law. C. The formal letter of demand together with the deficiency tax assessments are void for failure to state the facts and the law on which they are based. D. Respondent's collection of the amount of Php598,177,575.24 from petitioner on the basis of void assessments is equivalent to confiscation of petitioner's property without due process of law. The Court En Banc finds that most of the contentions presented in the motion are mere reiteration or amplification of the arguments raised by petitioner in its Petition for Review filed on June 20, 2013, all of which were duly considered in the assailed resolution. Anent petitioner's invocation of the concept of equal application of law, i.e., to relax technical or procedural rules similar to what the Court in Division did in admitting respondent's Answer despite being filed out of time , suffice it to say that petitioner's case is not about failure to comply with procedural rules governing Court proceedings but concerns its failure to perfect an appeal with the Court in Division within the thirty (30)-day period allowed under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 12-99. To reiterate, the 30-day period within which to file an appeal with the CTA is jurisdictional and failure to comply therewith would bar the appeal and deprive the CTA of its jurisdiction to entertain and determine the correctness of the assessments. 1 IEAacT All told, the Court En Banc therefore finds no justifiable reason to modify the assailed resolution. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated November 20, 2013) filed on December 20, 2013 is DENIED , for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ., concur. Erlinda P. Uy, J. , is on leave. Footnotes 1. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 168498, April 24, 2007.