Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. Area II v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 258101. April 19, 2022.]

NUEVA ECIJA II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AREA II (NEECO II AREA II), petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 19, 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 258101 (Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. Area II (NEECO II Area II) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue). — This Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and AFFIRM the assailed Resolutions dated 10 March 2021 1 and 28 October 2021 2 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA EB) in CTA EB No. 2319 for failure of petitioner Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. Area II (petitioner) to show that the CTA EB committed any reversible error in affirming the dismissal of the Petition before the CTA First Division for lack of jurisdiction.

As correctly ruled by the CTA EB, Section 228 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8424, or the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (hereafter, Tax Code) unmistakably provides that the one hundred eighty (180)-day period should be reckoned from the "submission of documents," which in this case was on 19 September 2016. Perforce, the statutory 180-day period lapsed on 18 March 2017. From such point, petitioner had thirty (30) days, or until 17 April 2017, to elevate the case to the CTA. However, it filed its Petition only on 2 June 2017, which is beyond the reglementary period provided by the law. Notably, Section 3.1.4 4 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-13, which implements Section 228 of the Tax Code, provides for alternative courses of action to the taxpayer upon its receipt of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment issued by the authorized representative of respondent Commissioner on Internal Revenue (respondent), 5 including the option of elevating the protest to the respondent himself through a request for reconsideration. However, nowhere in said provision does it provide that a fresh 180-day period is granted to the respondent to act on such administrative appeal. As aptly observed by the CTA EB, upholding petitioner's argument would run contrary to the clear language of Section 228 and would unduly expand the period provided by the law. Necessarily, taxpayers must exercise their rights in the manner and within the periods provided by statute and the pertinent regulations. 6 "It bears to stress that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is a jurisdictional requirement and failure to do so renders the questioned decision or decree final and executory and no longer subject to review." 7

All told, the Petition must be denied.

With the denial of the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner's concurrent application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is necessarily DENIED.

The petitioner's manifestation dated 9 December 2021 stating that a soft copy of the motion for extension was electronically filed on 8 December 2021, with attached verified declaration of the said motion, is NOTED.

SO ORDERED."Gaerlan, J., on official leave. CAIHTE

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Signed by Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda Jr, Erlina P. Uy, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro. Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario on leave; Rollo, pp. 83-88.

2. Signed by Court of Tax Appeals Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaneda Jr., Erlina P. Uy, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, and Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo; Rollo, pp. 90-97.

3. Section 228. Protesting of Assessment. — When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: provided, however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases:

xxx xxx xxx

If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable.

4. 3.1.4 Disputed Assessment. — The taxpayer or its authorized representative or tax agent may protest administratively against the aforesaid FLD/FAN within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof. The taxpayer protesting an assessment may file a written request for reconsideration or reinvestigation defined as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

If the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner's duly authorized representative, the taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision; or (ii) elevate his protest through request for reconsideration to the Commissioner within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision. No request for reinvestigation shall be allowed in administrative appeal and only issues raised in the decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative shall be entertained by the Commissioner.

xxx xxx xxx

5. See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. V.Y. Domingo Jewellers, Inc., G.R. No. 221780, 25 March 2019.

6. See Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. V. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 779 PHIL. 547-562 (27 January 2016).

7.Misnet, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 210604, 3 June 2019.