CTA Case No. 746 (Decision)

nm ILVVJILIC OP PHILIPPINB COURT .OF TAX APPEALs . IUNB.4 TU S0\1 & LEGARD � LTD o 1 C. T. � Cf SE NO. 746 Pet.itioner , - versus - THE CQ\1lv'iiSSIGJEH OF INTERNAL REVENUE, espondento DECIS IO N This is � petition to review the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Re venue requiring peti- tioner Tu�son & Leg�rd�, Ltdo to pay the �mount of ~2 , 814o95 , �s specific tax on distilled spirits and compounded liquor, plu s � 3COaOO �s compromi se penalty . Petitioner Tua s on & Legarda , Ltd., owner and operator of La .H.osario Distillery ( t . s.no PPo 5- 6) j was a licensed distiller until 1938 (t Qs.no p. lOl)o On June 27, 1939 , it became � compounder of liquor (Exh. K- 2, CTA rec. , p. 28; t . son . Po 98) . Since its stocktaking by the Bureau of Internal rlevenue on July 13 , 1950 , it has ce�sed to operate (Exh. l j BIR reco p . 8) 0 As e�rly �s 1910 (t.sono pp. 16 �nd 88) 1 peti- tioner h�d Within the compound of L� os�rio Distil- lery gr�in �nd rectified alc ohol upon which the corres- ponding specific t�x h�s not been p�id. This stock of �lcohol was c arried over from month to month in its offici�l register books (Exh. 1, BI re c. p. 8; Exh.

DECISION - C. I . A. CASE NO. 746 - 2- L- l ; CIA rec. p. 29; Exh. M- l , CIA re c. p. 30) . In the c our se of a spot -c hecking and ver ification , the BIR s pec ial investigators noticed the stock of 998 proof liters of grain alc ohol and 72 proof liters of c ompounded liquor in question (t . s . n . pp . 52- 53). Consequently , they rec ommended the c ollection of �3 �525 . 4q, as s pec ific tax. {Exh. 1 , BL rec. pp. 6- 9) 0 In a letter d~ted December 16, 1958 (Exhs. 2 & A 1 BIR re c . p. 11) and received by petitioner on January 91 1959 {see Exhs. 3 & B, BIR rec. p. 22) , re spondent demanded of La Rosario Distillery the pay- ment of 3,525 . 401 as spec ific tax on the stoc k of alc ohol in que stion , plus 300. 00, as c ompromis e penalty. In reply ther eto; petitioner reque sted re s- pondent to send an agent to supervise the de st r uction of grain alc ohol and compounded l iquor for the rea s on that the same were no longer fit for human c on sumption {Exhs . 3 & B, BIR re c. p . 22) . In view of this request, a re - investigation of the c ase was made . The investi- gator s found the grain alc ohol and compounded liquor in que stion no longer fit for human c on sumption due to bad odor and t here fore recommended their destruction (Exhs . I y J & J~ l , BIR re c o pp. 34- 35) o However 1 a laboratory examination and analysi s of the spirits in que stion~ sub sequently c onducted by the laboratory section of the Bureau of Internal Revenue , showed that the s ame were

DECISI ON - C. T. A. CASE I Oo 746 -3- still fit for human c on sumption (Exhs o 4� 4- , BIR reco p. 38; to s on . p. 66) , and that the alc ohol c on - tent thereof wa s at ~arianc e with the entrie s in pe - titioner 's register books . Hence , on July 3, 1959 , the asse ssment for spec ific ta x wa s redu ced to � 2, 814 . 95 ( Exhs o 5 & C, C- lv C- 2, BI rec. PP o 48 - 49)o Thi s amended as sessment was admittedly re ceived by petitioner on August 12, 1959 (Exhso 6 & D, BI~ re c~ Po 52) o In a letter dated August 15, 1959 (Exhs. 6 & D, BIR r eco Po 52) and filed with re spondent on Augu st 15 , 1959 ( s ee Memorandum f or e spondent , CIA re c a p. 45) , petitioner r eiterated it s reque st for authority to de st r oy the gri.in alc ohol �nd c ompounded liquors , invoking the provi s ion s of Se ction 131 of the N~tional Internal Re venue Code . Re spondent , in his letter dated September 30~ 1959 (Exh s o 7 & E, BIR re c . p~ 57) and received by petitioner about the middle of October , 1959 (t.sono p. 41) , denied the reque st and again de - manded the payment of 2, 814 . 95 as s pec ific tax g plus ~300o00; as c omprom~se penalty . Once more , petitioner j in it s letter dated Nov- ember 25 , 1959 (Exhs . 8 & F, BIR rec o pp . 59- 60) and received by respondent on November 25, 1959 (see Memo - randum for Respondent , CIA reco p. 45), reque sted that it be allowed to destroy the grain alcohol and c om- pounded liquor for the reason that the same were not up to standard (Exhs . 8 & F, BI rec . PPo 59- 60) . This

DECISIO'-l - C.I.A. CASE NO. 746 -4- lettex wa s nevex answexed by xespondent . Instead , on De c embex 15, 1959, he issued a waxxant of distxaint and levy to enfoxce the c ollection of the specific tax hexein involved (Exho G, BI xe c. p. 68) . On Febxuaxy 1, 1960, petitionex requested that the waxxant of des - txaint and levy be lifted , and foxmally tendexed all the gxain alcohol and compounded liquor to xespondent in full discharge of the tax s ought to be c ollec ted (c xh. HR BI xeco Po 72)o On Februaxy 11 , 19601 petitioner instituted the instant appe al (CIA rec o p. l)o The issues involved in this c ase are: lo Whether or not the petition for review was filed wi t hin the 3 - day period prescribed in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 11 25 ; nd 2. hether or not petitioner is liable for the payment of specific ta x on its stock of grain alc ohol and compounded liquox. In his answer to the petition for review, res- pondent r aised the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to t ake cognizance of this c a se . He ma int ains t ha t this Court has no j ur i s diction over t he inst ant c � se i na s muc h a s t he petition for review wa s filed bey ond t he 30- day period pr e scribed in Sec tion 11 of epub l i c .� ct No . 1125. He contends th�t his le tter dCit ed Jul y 3, 1959 whexein he deman ed of pet itioner the payment of the re duced a ssessment of ~2, 8 14~ 9 5 , plus t he com- promi se penalty ., i s the decision which is a ppe el able

u.t.GL::>IU.'l C. I . A. C S- NO, 746 - 5 ..... to this Court . Hence , he c onc ludes that the 30- day period should be c,ounted from its receipt by peti- tionero On the other hand, petitioner claims that the petition for review w�s se asonably filedtarguing that the 3 - day period should be counted from anuary 3J, 1960, the date when _it was served the warrant of dis - traint and levy . Upon the foregoing facts , we find that the amended assessment of July 3, 1959 is the decision which should be appealed to this Courta It is a de - finite determination of petitioner ' s tax liability (-angasinan Transportation Coo, Inc. vs. Blaquera1 G. � oQ L- 131 l, April 29 , 1960; ~also St . Step- hen's ' ssociation and St . Stephen ' s Chinese Girls Sc hool vs . The Collector of Internal Revenue , GoR. 1 o. L- 11238, August 21 , 1958)o Therefore, the period within which to perfect the appeal commenced to run from the re ceipt of this assessment by petitioner on .. August 12, 1959. It was interrupted by the filing on August 15 , 1959 of petitioner ' s letter of the same date. The interruption ended on October 15 , 1959 when petitioner received the denial of its request for re- c onsideration . At the same time , it resumed to run until interruption once more supervened on November 29 , 1959a All in all , petitioner consumed 44 days, tabu - lated below:

DE I ~I01 - .To � CASE N0o 746 - 6 ... From ujust 12, 1959 - date pe - da s tition~r � eceived res ponatnt s dec ision o ul , 1959 to ..ugust 1 ~ 1959 - date peti- tioner filed its 1st r equest for reconside r ati on date u ust 15 , 19!:'9 rom Octo er 15, 1959 - d te of - 41 days receipt by petitioner of res pon - dent ' s letter denying its 1st request for reconsideration dated ugust 15, 1959 to l ovember 25 , 1959 - filing of petitioner 's 2nd request for reconsider~tion dated Novemoer 25 , 1959 The instant petition for review havin been filed out of time , this ~ ourt has no jurisdiction to take cogn iz ance of this c a se. In view of the finding that this Court h~s no jurisdiction ove the c a se at bar , we shall not p~ss upon the legality of ~s s essment in question . \vHE.H.EF0KE , the petition for review in this case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, With costs against petitionero . Su OrlD tlliD o ~a nila, February 17 , 1961. ~I A~o - ~~ �!A&r 11-\t{ .....\j Pre siding Judge rl0v1AN M. Ulv\ALI Associate Judge