CTA Case No. 2125 (Resolution)

\EPUMUC OF THE PHILIPPINEI� COURT OF TAX A;PPEAL8 QUEZON CITY . .' - GERiviAN T� CANDARI , C. T. A. CASE No . 2125 Petitioner , - versus - CO 11 ISSIONER OF' I NTERNAL REVErUE , Respondent . X- - - ~ - - - - - - X RE S 0 L UT I 0 N Respondent sought the dismissal of the petition for review because it failed to state a cause of action and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal o Petitioner was engaged in business in Catbal ogan, Samar , as exc~usive dea+er or seller of the products of International Harvester Coo of Philippines , now Inter national Harvester l acleod , Inco; I HM for short o He purchased tractors , trucks heavy equipment , and parts or accessories ther eof fro m the I HN and sold . them to his customers under the terms� of �the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements with the IHMo Sometime in November 1962 , respondent demanded upon petitioner the payment of the commercial broker ' s fixed and percentage taxes amounting to ~11 , 364 . 51 covering the period from 1956 to 1960 inclusiveo (See PPo l - 2 , Pet e for Revc , CTA rec . ) The demand letter was protested and contested by petitioner , but no deci- sion has as yet been rendered by res pondent (po 4 , Pet o for Rev ., CTA r ec . )o

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE No . 2125 2 In the meantime, the resolution of the protest was held in abeyance by res pondent pending the deci- sion of this Court on CTA Case Noo 1016 entitled "Cirilo D. Constantino vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue11 involving the same controversial issue o The said case was decided by this Court in favor of peti- tioner on ~arch 14, 1966 but it was appealed by re- spondent to the Supreme Court . The decision of the lower court was rev~r,s edby the Supreme Court on Februa- ry 27 , 1970. On 1, ay 20 , 1970, petitioner appealed the present case to this Court alleging that , despite the fact that no final decision has been rendered by the respondent on petitioner 1 s protest and/or request for reconsider- ation , the "petition is being filed in view of infor- mation received from the Bureau of Internal Revenue that a ~arrant of Distraint and Levy may be served up- on petitioner" (po 4, Pet . for Rev ., CTA rec o)o On August 10 , 1970�, respondent filed his motion to dismiss . On September 18 , 1970 , petitioner opposed the said motion and claimed that in view of the pecul:i,.ar circumstances of the case , the dismissal thereof is not propero Petitioner argues that , when the Supreme Court decided the Constantino case in favor of respond- ent on February 27 , 1970 , he is deemed to have decided the di.s puted assessment simultaneously with the Supreme Court , conformably with the previous understanding between the partieso

RES LUTI CT CAS , o . 2125 3 This Court has jurisdiction to review the appeal made by taxpayers from decisions of the Commissioner of Internal even ue on disputed revenue tax assessment . However , the petition for review i tself admits that no final decision has been rendered by respondent on peti- tioner's protest and/or request for recon sideration . Con- sequently , the filing of the present petit ion for review is premature and , therefore , this Court has no jurisdic- tion to take co gnizance of the case (Commissioner of In- ternal evenue v . Villa , et al. , G ~ R . I o . L-239 8 , Jan ~ 2 , 1968 ; Candyman Inc . v . Commissioner of Into evo , CTA Case o. 1872 , Jan . 20 , l970) o WHE F RE , finding respondent's motion to dismiss well ta en , the petition for review has to be , as it is hereby , dismissed . SO ERED . Quezon City , January 22 , 1971. I Associate C NCUR : A1v10 1 o AVAl~CE Associate Judge