Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Daewoo Engineering & Construction Company Limited

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1799. June 5, 2020.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8829) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs . DAEWOO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED , respondent . RESOLUTION FABON-VICTORINO , J p : On August 29, 2019, the Court rendered a Decision, 1 disposing the case in the following fashion: TIADCc WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review dated March 19, 2018 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DENIED . The impugned Decision and Resolution respectively dated November 17, 2017 and February 7, 2018, both rendered by the Court in Division are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. In so ruling, the Court explained that since petitioner sent the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), together with the Final Assessment Notice (FAN) to respondent's old address, despite having attained previous knowledge of its new address, no PAN and FAN were validly served, let alone received by respondent, thereby transgressing respondent's right to due process on assessment. As such, the assessments in question are a patent nullity, justifying their cancellation and withdrawal. In moving 2 to reconsider the Impugned Decision, petitioner argues that: I.wxwxThere is no valid transfer of address by respondent for failure to comply with all the requirements of Section 11 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-85. Hence, the sending the PAN and FAN to respondent's address at 29th Floor, Enterprise Center, Tower I, 6766 Ayala Venue, Makati City is legally binding upon the latter; and II.wxwxHe complied with the due process requirement set forth in Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, and Section 3 of RR No. 12-99. In refutation, 3 respondent retorts that with petitioner's mailing of the PAN and the FAN to its old address at 29th Floor, Enterprise Center, Tower I, 6766 Ayala Venue, Makati City notwithstanding its previous knowledge of its new address at 15th Floor, the Taipan Place F. Ortigas Jr. Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, it failed to receive the foregoing assessment notices, hence, its due process on assessment was violated, citing Decisions of this Court, 4 as well as of that of High Tribunal 5 as authorities. Further, respondent states that both its testimonial and documentary evidence are rich with information that petitioner was duly notified about its change of address for which reason, petitioner may not be permitted to feign ignorance of its new address at Pasig City in connection with the alleged mailing of the PAN and FAN to it. Glossing over the impugned Decision of August 29, 2019, as well as the arguments put forward by petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration and by respondent in its Comment reveal that their contentions are mere replication of those advanced in their previously filed pleadings, all of which have been considered and passed upon by the Court En Banc . Without any novel or significant matter warranting modification, much more reversal of the impugned Decision of August 29, 2019, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated September 23, 2019 should be denied. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED , for lack of merit. cSEDTC SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 133-146. 2. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 29 August 2019), ibid . at pp. 159-164. 3. Respondent's Comment/Opposition (Re: petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration), id. , unpaged. 4. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Coolmate Corp. , CTA EB No. 1226, June 8, 2016; and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Yukon General Manpower Services Corp. , CTA EB No. 1444, July 24, 2017. 5. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. BASF Coating + Inks Phils., Inc. , G.R. No. 198677, November 26, 2014.