9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

ALLIEDBANKING

G.R.No.175097
CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

Present:

CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,
versus

BRION,

DELCASTILLO,

ABAD,and

PEREZ,JJ.
COMMISSIONEROF

INTERNALREVENUE,

Promulgated:
Respondent.

February5,2010
xx

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

Thekeytoeffectivecommunicationisclarity.

TheCommissionerofInternalRevenue(CIR)aswellashisdulyauthorizedrepresentativemust
indicateclearlyandunequivocallytothetaxpayerwhetheranactionconstitutesafinaldeterminationon
[1]
adisputedassessment. Wordsmustbecarefullychoseninordertoavoidanyconfusionthatcould
adverselyaffecttherightsandinterestofthetaxpayer.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

1/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

[2]
AssailedinthisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari underSection12ofRepublicAct(RA)No.
[3]
[4]
9282, inrelationtoRule45oftheRulesofCourt,aretheAugust23,2006Decision oftheCourt
[5]
of Tax Appeals (CTA) and its October 17, 2006 Resolution denying petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration.

FactualAntecedents

On April 30, 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Preliminary Assessment
Notice(PAN)topetitionerAlliedBankingCorporationfordeficiencyDocumentaryStampTax(DST)
intheamountofP12,050,595.60andGrossReceiptsTax(GRT)intheamountofP38,995,296.76on
[6]
industryissueforthetaxableyear2001. PetitionerreceivedthePANonMay18,2004andfileda
[7]
protestagainstitonMay27,2004.

On July 16, 2004, the BIR wrote a Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices to
[8]
petitioner,whichpartlyreadsasfollows:

Itisrequestedthattheabovedeficiencytaxbepaidimmediatelyuponreceipthereof,inclusiveofpenalties
incidenttodelinquency.Thisisourfinaldecisionbasedoninvestigation.Ifyoudisagree,youmayappeal
thefinaldecisionwithinthirty(30)daysfromreceipthereof,otherwisesaiddeficiencytaxassessment
shallbecomefinal,executoryanddemandable.

[9]
PetitionerreceivedtheFormalLetterofDemandwithAssessmentNoticesonAugust30,2004.

ProceedingsbeforetheCTAFirstDivision

[10]
OnSeptember 29, 2004, petitioner filed a Petition for Review
with the CTA which was
[11]
raffledtoitsFirstDivisionanddocketedasCTACaseNo.7062.

[12]
On December 7, 2004, respondent CIR filed his Answer.
On July 28, 2005, he filed a
[13]
Motion to Dismiss
on the ground that petitioner failed to file an administrative protest on the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

2/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices. Petitioner opposed the Motion to Dismiss on
[14]
August18,2005.

[15]
On October 12, 2005, the First Division of the CTA rendered a Resolution
granting
respondentsMotiontoDismiss.Itruled:

Clearly,itisneithertheassessmentnortheformaldemandletteritselfthatisappealabletothis
Court.ItisthedecisionoftheCommissionerofInternalRevenueonthedisputedassessmentthatcanbe
appealedtothisCourt(CommissionerofInternalRevenuevs.Villa,22SCRA3).Ascorrectlypointedout
byrespondent,adisputedassessmentisonewhereinthetaxpayerorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentative
filedanadministrativeprotestagainsttheformalletterofdemandandassessmentnoticewithinthirty(30)
daysfromdate[of]receiptthereof.Inthiscase,petitionerfailedtofileanadministrativeprotestonthe
formal letter of demand with the corresponding assessment notices. Hence, the assessments did not
becomedisputedassessmentsassubjecttotheCourtsreviewunderRepublicActNo.9282.(Seealso
Republicv.LiamTianTengSons&Co.,Inc.,16SCRA584.)

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Petition for Review is hereby
DISMISSEDforlackofjurisdiction.

[16]
SOORDERED.

Aggrieved,petitionermovedforreconsiderationbutthemotionwasdeniedbytheFirstDivision
[17]
initsResolutiondatedFebruary1,2006.
ProceedingsbeforetheCTAEnBanc

[18]
OnFebruary22,2006,petitionerappealedthedismissaltotheCTAEnBanc.
Thecasewas
docketedasCTAEBNo.167.

FindingnoreversibleerrorintheResolutionsdatedOctober12,2005andFebruary1,2006of
[19]
the CTA First Division, the CTA En Banc denied the Petition for Review
as well as petitioners
[20]
MotionforReconsideration.

The CTA En Banc declared that it is absolutely necessary for the taxpayer to file an
administrativeprotestinorderfortheCTAtoacquirejurisdiction.Itemphasizedthatanadministrative
protestisanintegralpartoftheremediesgiventoataxpayerinchallengingthelegalityorvalidityofan

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

3/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

assessment.AccordingtotheCTAEnBanc,althoughthereareexceptionstothedoctrineofexhaustion
ofadministrativeremedies,theinstantcasedoesnotfallinanyoftheexceptions.

Issue

Hence,thepresentrecourse,wherepetitionerraisestheloneissueofwhethertheFormalLetter
ofDemanddatedJuly16,2004canbeconstruedasafinaldecisionoftheCIRappealabletotheCTA
underRA9282.

OurRuling

Thepetitionismeritorious.

Section7ofRA9282expresslyprovidesthattheCTA
exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by
appealdecisionsoftheCIRincasesinvolvingdisputed
assessments

TheCTA,beingacourtofspecialjurisdiction,cantakecognizanceonlyof
[21]
mattersthatareclearlywithinitsjurisdiction.
Section7ofRA9282provides:

Sec.7.Jurisdiction.TheCTAshallexercise:

(a)Exclusiveappellatejurisdictiontoreviewbyappeal,ashereinprovided:

(1)Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving

disputedassessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
BureauofInternalRevenue

(2)InactionbytheCommissionerofInternalRevenueincasesinvolvingdisputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges,
penaltiesinrelationthereto,orothermattersarisingundertheNational
Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of
InternalRevenue,wheretheNationalInternalRevenueCodeprovidesa
specificperiodofaction,inwhichcasetheinactionshallbedeemeda
denial(Emphasissupplied)

xxxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

4/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

TheworddecisionsintheabovequotedprovisionofRA9282hasbeeninterpretedtomeanthe
[22]
decisions of the CIR on the protest of the taxpayer against the assessments.
Corollary thereto,
Section228oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC)providesfortheprocedureforprotestingan
assessment.Itstates:

SECTION 228. Protesting of Assessment. When the Commissioner or his duly authorized
representativefindsthatpropertaxesshouldbeassessed,heshallfirstnotifythetaxpayerofhisfindings:
Provided,however,Thatapreassessmentnoticeshallnotberequiredinthefollowingcases:
(a)Whenthefindingforanydeficiencytaxistheresultofmathematicalerrorinthecomputation
ofthetaxasappearingonthefaceofthereturnor

(b)Whenadiscrepancyhasbeendeterminedbetweenthetaxwithheldandtheamountactually
remittedbythewithholdingagentor

(c)Whenataxpayerwhooptedtoclaimarefundortaxcreditofexcesscreditablewithholdingtax
for a taxable period was determined to have carried over and automatically applied the same amount
claimedagainsttheestimatedtaxliabilitiesforthetaxablequarterorquartersofthesucceedingtaxable
yearor

(d)Whentheexcisetaxdueonexcisablearticleshasnotbeenpaidor

(e)Whenanarticlelocallypurchasedorimportedbyanexemptperson,suchas,butnotlimited
to,vehicles,capitalequipment,machineriesandspareparts,hasbeensold,tradedortransferredtonon
exemptpersons.

Thetaxpayersshallbeinformedinwritingofthelawandthefactsonwhichtheassessmentis
madeotherwise,theassessmentshallbevoid.

Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be
required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly
authorizedrepresentativeshallissueanassessmentbasedonhisfindings.

Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or

reinvestigationwithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptoftheassessmentinsuchformandmannerasmaybe
prescribedbyimplementingrulesandregulations.Withinsixty(60)daysfromfilingoftheprotest,all
relevantsupportingdocumentsshallhavebeensubmittedotherwise,theassessmentshallbecomefinal.

Iftheprotestisdeniedinwholeorinpart,orisnotacteduponwithinonehundredeighty(180)
days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may
appealtotheCourtofTaxAppealswithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptofthesaiddecision,orfromthe
lapseoftheonehundredeighty(180)dayperiodotherwise,thedecisionshallbecomefinal,executory
anddemandable.

Intheinstantcase,petitionertimelyfiledaprotestafterreceivingthePAN.Inresponsethereto,
theBIRissuedaFormalLetterofDemandwithAssessmentNotices.PursuanttoSection228ofthe
NIRC, the proper recourse of petitioner was to dispute the assessments by filing an administrative
protestwithin30daysfromreceiptthereof.Petitioner, however, did not protest the final assessment
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

5/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

notices.Instead,itfiledaPetitionforReviewwiththeCTA.Thus,ifwestrictlyapplytherules,the
dismissalofthePetitionforReviewbytheCTAwasproper.

Thecaseisanexceptiontothe
ruleonexhaustionofadministrativeremedies

However,acarefulreadingoftheFormalLetterofDemandwithAssessmentNoticesleadsusto
agreewithpetitionerthattheinstantcaseisanexceptiontotheruleonexhaustionofadministrative
remedies,i.e.,estoppelonthepartoftheadministrativeagencyconcerned.

[23]
InthecaseofVda.DeTanv.VeteransBackpayCommission,
therespondentcontendedthat
beforefilingapetitionwiththecourt,petitionershouldhavefirstexhaustedalladministrativeremedies
by appealing to the Office of the President. However, we ruled that respondent was estopped from
invokingtheruleonexhaustionofadministrativeremediesconsideringthatinitsResolution,itsaid,
The opinions promulgated by the Secretary of Justice are advisory in nature, which may either be
accepted or ignored by the office seeking the opinion, and any aggrieved party has the court for
recourse.Thestatementoftherespondentinsaidcaseledthepetitionertoconcludethatonlyafinal
judicialrulinginherfavorwouldbeacceptedbytheCommission.

Similarly,inthiscase,wefindtheCIRestoppedfromclaimingthatthefilingofthePetitionfor
Reviewwasprematurebecausepetitionerfailedtoexhaustalladministrativeremedies.

TheFormalLetterofDemandwithAssessmentNoticesreads:

BasedonyourletterprotestdatedMay26,2004,youallegedthefollowing:

1.ThatthesaidassessmenthasalreadyprescribedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection
203oftheTaxCode.

2.ThatsincetheexemptionofFCDUsfromalltaxesfoundintheOldTaxCodehasbeen
deleted,thewordingofSection28(A)(7)(b)disclosesthattherearenoothertaxesimposable
uponFCDUsasidefromthe10%FinalIncomeTax.
Contrary to your allegation, the assessments covering GRT and DST for taxable year 2001 has not
prescribedfor[sic]simplybecausenoreturnswerefiled,thus,thethreeyearprescriptiveperiodhasnot
lapsed.

With the implementation of the CTRP, the phrase exempt from all taxes was deleted.Please refer to
Section27(D)(3)and28(A)(7)ofthenewTaxCode.Accordingly,youwereassessedfordeficiencygross
receiptstaxononshoreincomefromforeigncurrencytransactionsinaccordancewiththeratesprovided
underSection121ofthesaidTaxCode.Likewise,deficiencydocumentarystamptaxeswas[sic]also
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

6/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

assessedonLoanAgreements,BillsPurchased,CertificateofDepositsandrelatedtransactionspursuantto
Sections180and181ofNIRC,asamended.

The25%surchargeand20%interesthavebeenimposedpursuanttotheprovisionofSection248(A)and
249(b),respectively,oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended.

Itisrequestedthattheabovedeficiencytaxbepaidimmediatelyuponreceipthereof,inclusiveofpenalties
incidenttodelinquency.Thisisourfinaldecisionbasedoninvestigation.Ifyoudisagree,youmay
appealthisfinaldecisionwithinthirty(30)daysfromreceipthereof,otherwisesaiddeficiencytax
[24]
assessmentshallbecomefinal,executoryanddemandable. (Emphasissupplied)

ItappearsfromtheforegoingdemandletterthattheCIRhasalreadymadeafinaldecisiononthe
matterandthattheremedyofpetitioneristoappealthefinaldecisionwithin30days.

[25]
InOceanicWirelessNetwork,Inc.v.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,
weconsideredthe
languageusedandthetenorofthelettersenttothetaxpayerasthefinaldecisionoftheCIR.

Inthiscase,recordsshowthatpetitionerdisputedthePANbutnottheFormalLetterofDemand
withAssessmentNotices.Nevertheless,wecannotblamepetitionerfornotfilingaprotestagainstthe
Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices since the language used and the tenor of the
demandletterindicatethatitisthefinaldecisionoftherespondentonthematter.Wehavetimeand
again reminded the CIR to indicate, in a clear and unequivocal language, whether his action on a
disputedassessmentconstituteshisfinaldeterminationthereoninorderforthetaxpayerconcernedto
[26]
determine when his or her right to appeal to the tax court accrues.
Viewed in the light of the
foregoing, respondent is now estopped from claiming that he did not intend the Formal Letter of
DemandwithAssessmentNoticestobeafinaldecision.

Moreover, we cannot ignore the fact that in the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment
Notices, respondent used the word appeal instead of protest, reinvestigation, or reconsideration.
AlthoughtherewasnodirectreferenceforpetitionertobringthematterdirectlytotheCTA,itcannot
bedeniedthatthewordappealunderprevailingtaxlawsreferstothefilingofaPetitionforReview
withtheCTA.Asaptlypointedoutbypetitioner,underSection228oftheNIRC,thetermsprotest,
reinvestigationandreconsiderationrefertotheadministrativeremediesataxpayermaytakebeforethe
CIR,whilethetermappealreferstotheremedyavailabletothetaxpayerbeforetheCTA.Section9of
[27]
RA9282,amendingSection11ofRA1125,
likewiseusesthetermappealwhenreferringtothe
actionataxpayermusttakewhenadverselyaffectedbyadecision,ruling,orinactionoftheCIR.Aswe
seeitthen,petitionerinappealingtheFormalLetterofDemandwithAssessmentNoticestotheCTA
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

7/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

merelytookthecuefromrespondent.Besides,anydoubtintheinterpretationoruseofthewordappeal
intheFormalLetterofDemandwithAssessmentNoticesshouldberesolvedinfavorofpetitioner,and
nottherespondentwhocausedtheconfusion.

Tobeclear,wearenotdisregardingtherulesofprocedureunderSection228oftheNIRC,as
[28]
implemented by Section 3 of BIR Revenue Regulations No. 1299.
It is the Formal Letter of
DemandandAssessmentNoticethatmustbeadministrativelyprotestedordisputedwithin30days,and
notthePAN.NeitherarewedeviatingfromourpronouncementinSt.StephensChineseGirlsSchoolv.
[29]
CollectorofInternalRevenue,
thatthecountingofthe30dayswithinwhichtoinstituteanappealin
theCTAcommencesfromthedateofreceiptofthedecisionoftheCIRonthedisputedassessment,not
fromthedatetheassessmentwasissued.

Whatwearesayinginthisparticularcaseisthat,theFormalLetterofDemandwithAssessment
Noticeswhichwasnotadministrativelyprotestedbythepetitionercanbeconsideredafinaldecisionof
the CIR appealable to the CTA because the words used, specifically the words final decision and
appeal, taken together led petitioner to believe that the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment
Notices was in fact the final decision of the CIR on the letterprotest it filed and that the available
remedywastoappealthesametotheCTA.

We note, however, that during the pendency of the instant case, petitioner availed of the
provisionsofRevenueRegulationsNo.302002anditsimplementingRevenueMemorandumOrder
bysubmittinganofferofcompromiseforthesettlementoftheGRT,DSTandVATfortheperiod1998
[30]
2003,asevidencedbyaCertificateofAvailmentdatedNovember21,2007.
Accordingly,thereis
noreasontoreinstatethePetitionforReviewinCTACaseNo.7062.

WHEREFORE, the petition is herebyGRANTED.The assailed August 23, 2006 Decision

andtheOctober17,2006ResolutionoftheCourtofTaxAppealsareREVERSEDandSETASIDE.
ThePetitionforReviewinCTACaseNo.7062isherebyDISMISSEDbasedsolelyontheBureauof
InternalRevenuesacceptanceofpetitionersofferofcompromiseforthesettlementofthegrossreceipts
tax,documentarystamptaxandvalueaddedtax,fortheyears19982003.

SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

8/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

JOSEP.PEREZ
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

9/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsattestation,itis
herebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
[1]
SurigaoElectricCo.,Inc.v.CourtofTaxAppeals,156Phil.517,522523(1974).
[2]
Rollo,pp.721.
[3]
AnActExpandingtheJurisdictionoftheCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA),ElevatingitsRanktotheLevelofaCollegiateCourtwithSpecial
JurisdictionandEnlargingitsMembership,AmendingforthePurposeCertainSectionsofRepublicActNo.1125,AsAmended,otherwise
knownastheLawCreatingtheCourtofTaxAppeals,andforOtherPurposes.
[4]
Rollo,pp.2330pennedbyAssociateJusticeErlindaP.UyandconcurredinbyPresidingJusticeErnestoD.Acosta,andAssociateJustices
JuanitoC.Castaeda,Jr.,LovellR.Bautista,andCaesarA.Casanova.AssociateJusticeOlgaPalancaEnriquezinhibitedherselfanddidnot
takepart.
[5]
Id.at3234.
[6]
Id.at5354.
[7]
Id.at24.
[8]
Id.at3536.
[9]
Id.at24.
[10]
Id.at3761.
[11]
Id.at24.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id.at6266.
[14]
Id.at25.
[15]
Id.at6772.
[16]
Id.at7172.
[17]
Id.at25.
[18]
Id.at23.
[19]
Id.at29.
[20]
Id.at34.
[21]
RizalCommercialBankingCorporationv.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,G.R.No.168498,April24,2007,522SCRA144,150.
[22]
CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.Villa,130Phil.3,6(1968).
[23]
105Phil.377,383(1959).
[24]
Rollo,p.36.
[25]
G.R.No.148380,December9,2005,477SCRA205,211.
[26]
SurigaoElectricCo.,Inc.v.CourtofTaxAppeals,supranote1.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

10/11

9/9/2016

G.R.No.175097

[27]
Section11.Who may Appeal Mode ofAppeal Effect of AppealAny party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the
CommissionerofInternalRevenue,theCommissionerofCustoms,theSecretaryofFinance,theSecretaryofTradeandIndustryortheSecretary
ofAgricultureortheCentralBoardofAssessmentAppealsortheRegionalTrialCourtsmayfileanappealwiththeCTAwithinthirty(30)
daysafterthereceiptofsuchdecisionorrulingoraftertheexpirationoftheperiodfixedbylawforactionasreferredtoinSection7(a)(2)
herein.
xxxx
[28]
Section3.DueProcessRequirementintheIssuanceofaDeficiencyTaxAssessment.
xxxx
3.1.2PreliminaryAssessmentNotice(PAN).IfafterreviewandevaluationbytheAssessmentDivisionorbytheCommissionerorhisduly
authorizedrepresentative,asthecasemaybe,itisdeterminedthatthereexistssufficientbasistoassessthetaxpayerforanydeficiencytaxor
taxes,thesaidOfficeshallissuetothetaxpayer,atleastbyregisteredmail,aPreliminaryAssessmentNotice(PAN)fortheproposedassessment,
showingindetail,thefactsandthelaw,rulesandregulations,orjurisprudenceonwhichtheproposedassessmentisbased.Ifthetaxpayerfails
torespondwithinfifteen(15)daysfromdateofreceiptofthePAN,heshallbeconsideredindefault,inwhichcase,aformalletterofdemand
andassessmentnoticeshallbecausedtobeissuedbythesaidOffice,callingforpaymentofthetaxpayer'sdeficiencytaxliability,inclusiveof
theapplicablepenalties.
xxxx
3.1.4FormalLetterofDemandandAssessmentNotice.TheformalletterofdemandandassessmentnoticeshallbeissuedbytheCommissioner
orhisdulyauthorizedrepresentative.Theletterofdemandcallingforpaymentofthetaxpayer'sdeficiencytaxortaxesshallstatethefacts,the
law,rulesandregulations,orjurisprudenceonwhichtheassessmentisbased,otherwise,theformalletterofdemandandassessmentnoticeshall
bevoid.Thesameshallbesenttothetaxpayeronlybyregisteredmailorbypersonaldelivery.xxx
3.1.5DisputedAssessmentThetaxpayerorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentativemayprotestadministrativelyagainsttheaforesaidformalletter
ofdemandandassessmentnoticewithinthirty(30)daysfromdateofreceiptthereofxxx.
Thetaxpayershallstatethefacts,theapplicablelaw,rulesandregulations,orjurisprudenceonwhichhisprotestisbased,otherwise,hisprotest
shallbeconsideredvoidandwithoutforceandeffectxxx.
Thetaxpayershallsubmittherequireddocumentsinsupportofhisprotestwithinsixty(60)daysfromthedateoffilingofhisletterofprotest,
otherwise,theassessmentshallbecomefinalandexecutoryanddemandablexxx
Ifthetaxpayerfailstofileavalidprotestagainsttheformalletterofdemandandassessmentnoticewithinthirty(30)daysfromdateofreceipt
thereof,theassessmentshallbecomefinal,executoryanddemandable.
Iftheprotestisdenied,inwholeorinpart,bytheCommissioner,thetaxpayermayappealtotheCourtofTaxAppealswithinthirty(30)days
fromdateofreceiptofthesaiddecision,otherwise,theassessmentshallbecomefinal,executoryanddemandable.
Ingeneral,iftheprotestisdenied,inwholeorinpart,bytheCommissionerorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentative,thetaxpayermayappealto
theCourtofTaxAppeals,withinthirty(30)daysfromdateofreceiptofthesaiddecision,otherwise,theassessmentshallbecomefinal,
executoryanddemandable:Provided,however,thatifthetaxpayerelevateshisprotesttotheCommissionerwithinthirty(30)daysfromdate
ofreceiptofthefinaldecisionoftheCommissionersdulyauthorizedrepresentative,thelattersdecisionshallnotbeconsideredfinal,executory
anddemandable,inwhichcase,theprotestshallbedecidedbytheCommissioner.
IftheCommissionerorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentativefailstoactonthetaxpayersprotestwithinonehundredeighty(180)daysfromdate
ofsubmission,bythetaxpayer,oftherequireddocumentsinsupportofhisprotest,thetaxpayermayappealtotheCourtofTaxAppealswithin
thirty(30)daysfromthelapseofsaid180dayperiod,otherwise,theassessmentshallbecomefinal,executoryanddemandable.
xxxx
[29]
104Phil.314,317(1958).
[30]
AnnexAofpetitionersMemorandum.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/175097.htm

11/11