Cta Case 9590
Cta Case 9590
THIRD DIVISION
*********
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
DECISION
UY, J.:
THE FACTS
1
Docket - Vol. 1. pp. 10 to 32.,0
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 2 of22
2
Par 5, The Parties, Petition/or Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 12.
3
Par 5, The Parties, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 12.
4
Par 1.1, The Parties, Memorandum, Docket- Vol. 2, p. 824.
5
Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket, Vol. 2, p. 736.
6
Exhibit "P-16", BIR Records, p. 70.
7
BIR Records, p. 83.
8
Exhibit "P-8", Docket, Vol I, p. 270. pA
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 3 of22
Thus, on May 15, 2017, petitioner filed the instant "Petition for
Review (With Urgent Motion for the Issuance of an Order to
9
Exhibit "P-7", BIR Records, pp. 90 to 91.
10
Exhibit "P-6", Docket- Vol. I, p 269.
11
BIR Records, pp. 94 to 96.
12
Exhibit "P-I, Docket, Vol. I, pp.ll9 to 120;
13
Exhibit "P-9, Docket, Vol. I, p.134.
14
Exhibit "P-10, Docket, Vol. I, p.l35 to 136.
15
16
r
Exhibit "P-29, Docket, Vol. I, pp. 205 to 222.
Exhibit "P-21", Docket, Vol. I, p. 38.
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 4 of22
Secondary Evidence. 27
19
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 549 to 556.
20
Notice of Pre-Trial Conference, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 526 to 527.
21
JSFI, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 736 to 742.
22
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 744 to 751.
23
Exhibit "P-34", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 577 to 603.
24
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 759 to 776.
25
Docket- Vol. 2, p. 777 to 778.
26
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 783 to 784.
27
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 785 to 796.
28
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 8oo to 805r
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 6 of22
THE ISSUES
29
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 809 to 815.
30
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 824 to 857.
31
Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 860 to 873.
32
Docket- Vol. 2, p. 876.
33
Stipulation of the Issues, JSFI, Docket- Vol. 2, p. 737j/O
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 7 of22
2.4 Whether the BIR can still assess JLL additional VAT,
after it has already paid its deficiency tax
assessments (including VAT) pursuant to SIR's
regular comprehensive audit; and
Petitioner's arguments:
Respondent's counter-arguments:
Since the correct sales of petitioner did not appear in its VAT
return, there can only be one inevitable conclusion -that there was
a substantial under-declaration of sales in its VAT returns.
34
Sec. 222. Exceptions to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of Taxes.
(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure
to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the
collection of such tax may be filed without assessment, at any time within ten
(I 0) years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That
in a fraud assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud
shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for the
collection thereof.
XXX XXX XXX~
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 9 of22
We disagree.
35
Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. 185666, February 4, 2015, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Villa, et
a!., 130 Phil. 3, 4 (1968).
36
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. V. Y Domingo Jewellers, Inc., G.R. No.
221780, March 25, 2019, citing CIR V. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian
Contractor Mindanao, Inc., 146 Phil. 139, 152 (2014).to
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 10of22
37
G.R. No.169225, November 17,2010., (Cl
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page II of22
39
G.R. No. 135210, July II, 2001./J
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 13 of22
until June 7, 2017, to appeal and challenge its validity with the
CTA.
Clearly, the filing of the instant Petition for Review on May 15,
2017 was within the thirty (30) day period.
Petitioner denies receiving the PAN and the FAN for the
subject deficiency VAT assessment. It argues that since due
process was not observed in this case, the subject assessment is
void. On the other hand, respondent insists that the assessment
notices were validly served to petitioner at its business address.
40
G.R. No. 157064, August 7, 2006. /J
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 16 of22
Petitioner claims that at the time when the PAN and FAN
were issued by respondent, it already transferred offices to its new
address at the "51h Floor Equitable Bank Tower. Paseo de Roxas
Avenue. Makati City". It likewise alleges that the SIR was fully
informed of the said change in address.
43
Exhibit "P-12", Docket - Vol. I, p.l49; admitted as Secondary Evidence in the
Resolution dated October 17, 2018, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 809 to 815.
44
Exhibit "P-13", Docket- Vol. I, p.l50; admitted as Secondary Evidence in the
Resolution dated October 17,2018, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 809 to 815.1\
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 18 of22
52
Exhibit "P-36", letter envelope attached to the PAN, BIR Records, p. 88.
53
Exhibit "P-35", BIR Records, p. 93.
54
G.R. No. 185371, December 8, 2010.
55
G.R. No. 197945 & G.R. Nos. 204119-20, July 9, 2018t>
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 20 of22
56
Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs Avon Products Manufacturing Inc., G.R. Nos.
201398-99 & G.R. Nos. 201418-19, October 3, 2018. ~
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 21 of22
SO ORDERED.
ER~P.UY
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~- ~~.(,.-- ~- <...
MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN
Associate Justice
MARIA
ATTESTATION
E~P.UY
Associate Justice
Chairperson, 3'd Division
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9590
Page 22 of22
CERTIFICATION
Presiding Justice