TAX REMEDIES(Issuance of Preliminary Assessment Notice)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
- versus -
METRO STAR SUPERAMA, INC.,
G.R. No. 185371 December 8, 2010
FACTS: Petitioner is a domestic corporation.
On January 26, 2001, the Regional Director of Revenue in
Legazpi City, issued Letter of Authority to examine petitioner’s
books of accounts and other accounting records for taxable year
1999.
For petitioner’s failure to comply with several requests to
present the records and Subpoena Duces Tecum, BIR Legal
Division issued an Indorsement to proceed with the investigation
based on the best evidence obtainable preparatory to the
issuance of assessment notice.
Then, RDO issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice
Letter stating a deficiency in VAT and withholding taxes in the
amount of P292, 874.16 for the year 1999. Thereafter, a formal
letter of demand was sent. The Final Notice of Seizure came next,
giving Metro Star Superama last opportunity to settle its
deficiency tax liabilities within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof, otherwise BIR shall be constrained to serve and execute
the Warrants of Distraint and/or Levy and Garnishment to
enforce collection.
Not able to comply, Metro Super Rama received a
Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy demanding payment of
deficiency value-added tax and withholding tax payment in the
amount of P292,874.16.
REPORTED BY: CLAVEL A. TUASON, TAXATION LAW REVIEW
The Commissioner denied the MOR filed by Metro Super
Rama.
Denying that it received a Preliminary Assessment Notice
(PAN) and claiming that it was not accorded due process, Metro
Star filed a petition for review with the CTA.
The CTA-Second Division rendered a decision in favor of
the Metro Super Rama.
The CTA-Second Division opined that “while there is a
disputable presumption that a mailed letter is deemed received
by the addressee in the ordinary course of mail, a direct denial of
the receipt of mail shifts the burden upon the party favored by
the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed
received by the addressee.”
It found that there was no clear showing that Metro Star
actually received the alleged PAN. It, accordingly, ruled that the
Formal Letter of Demand and the Warrant of Distraint and/or
Levy dated were void, as Metro Star was denied due process.
CTA En Banc affirmed in toto the CTA Second Division’s
decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Is the failure to strictly comply with notice
requirements prescribed under Section 228 of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1997 tantamount to a denial of due
process?
HELD: YES, not complying strictly with the Preliminary
Assessment Notice or PAN is tantamount to a denial of due
process.
Page 1
 TAX REMEDIES(Issuance of Preliminary Assessment Notice)
The Court agrees with the CTA that the CIR failed to
discharge its duty and present any evidence to show that Metro
Star indeed received the PAN dated January 16, 2002. It could
have simply presented the registry receipt or the certification
from the postmaster that it mailed the PAN, but failed. Neither
did it offer any explanation on why it failed to comply with the
requirement of service of the PAN. It merely accepted the letter
of Metro Star’s chairman dated April 29, 2002, that stated that he
had received the FAN dated April 3, 2002, but not the PAN.
Section 228 of the Tax Code clearly requires that the
taxpayer must first be informed that he is liable for deficiency
taxes through the sending of a PAN. He must be informed of the
facts and the law upon which the assessment is made. The law
imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. To
proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing
a valid assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal principle
in administrative investigations - that taxpayers should be able
to present their case and adduce supporting evidence.
3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). — If after
review and evaluation by the Assessment Division or by the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the case
may be, it is determined that there exists sufficient basis to
assess the taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes, the said Office
shall issue to the taxpayer, at least by registered mail, a
Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the proposed
assessment, showing in detail, the facts and the law, rules and. If
the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from date
of receipt of the PAN, he shall be considered in default, in which
case, a formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be
caused to be issued by the said Office, calling for payment of the
REPORTED BY: CLAVEL A. TUASON, TAXATION LAW REVIEW
taxpayer's deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable
penalties. From the provision quoted above, it is clear that the
sending of a PAN to taxpayer to inform him of the assessment
made is but part of the “due process requirement in the issuance
of a deficiency tax assessment,” the absence of which renders
nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. The use of
the word “shall” in subsection 3.1.2 describes the mandatory
nature of the service of a PAN. The persuasiveness of the right to
due process reaches both substantial and procedural rights and
the failure of the CIR to strictly comply with the requirements
laid down by law and its own rules is a denial of Metro Star’s
right to due process.[15] Thus, for its failure to send the PAN
stating the facts and the law on which the assessment was made
as required by Section 228 of R.A. No. 8424, the assessment
made by the CIR is void.
It is an elementary rule enshrined in the 1987
Constitution that no person shall be deprived of property
without due process of law. In balancing the scales between the
power of the State to tax and its inherent right to prosecute
perceived transgressors of the law on one side, and the
constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of law and the
equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales must tilt in
favor of the individual, for a citizen’s right is amply protected by
the Bill of Rights under the Constitution. Thus, while “taxes are
the lifeblood of the government,” the power to tax has its limits,
in spite of all its plenitude.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Page 2