CTA Case No. 659 (Decision)
REPUBUC OF .TTIE PHILil?PlmZB COURT OF TAX APPEAJ..3 OT'tt70N CITV KI SHINCHAND CHELLARAM (!vli\KIL.i\) 1 C.T.A. CASE �NO. 659 INC. I Petitioner, / - versus - THE CCLLECTOR OF IN'l' ERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - ~- X DECI SI 0 N This action is one of a deficiency assessment for inco me and advance sales taxes in the res- pective amounts of Pl51 , 579 . 00 and Pl77 , 076~22 for the years 195 3 to 19 57, e verred by petitioner to have been illeg Rlly imp o sed by the res p ondent Coll e ctor (now Commiss ion e r) of Int e rnal Revenue. The re~ords s h ow tha t (l) Petiti one r corpo- Phili pp ines i::: enc:;.?ged in U:e il'1portation o f mer- ch andise and as a genc.r<~l mcrchdnt , in 1-.r'nolesc.le and retail business with address at R-~ 10, Marvel Building, 576 Juan Luna, Manila ; (2) Sometime on September 1 9 ~ 1958, petitioner's off ice together with otLer t .u s ine~3S establ i shments "':o re searcrH:.!d upon valid \�Jarrant duly� issued by Judge Amado Roan ... 1
DEC I.S I OJ::1 - CTA CM:E J'; O . 6 59 - 2- of t h e Ma nil a Ci ~y Cou r t ~nd various b o oks of accounts , busin~ss records and coMne rc i a' l d c cu- men t s were se i ze d by a t eam of th e Co n stabulaty- Revenue-Customs Service Group (C-R-C) stationed a t Camp Cr ame , Cu czon Ci ty ; ( 3 ) Based .o n the r ecords se i zed an d i nve st ig ~ ti on cond uc te d by t he BIR exa~ine rs, r e t i t i one r was assesse d~ de - ficienc y in com e ~ nd advence sa les t a xes for the years 195 3-195 7, inclus ive , under l ettomof demand dat ed J an u ~ ry 23 1 a nd Fe ~r u a ry 1 2 , 19 59 of the r espondent, and (4 ) warrant3 of ga r nishment were served in March 1 9 59 to seve ra l Ma nil 2 bank ing in st i tut.i ons aga ir�s t any acco unt/depo:::; i t o r other property 'i n the n .:::.rne of pet .i t ioner , ~;.i[l ich n etted P 539.37 deposi t with the Ch urtered Bank ; {5 ) On March 17, 1959 peti tioGer protested by filing a r equest fo r reinvestigat ion an~ fo r ma l hearing of the sa i d as~e~~mPn t s but res0onden t in h i s lett e r d.:,ted 11.pril l, 1 959 c'let'ied t.he r:.=t,�ue for pct itiooe r 1 s f a ilur e t o co:np l y vdth the r eq ui si. t e �,v,, iv e r of �the s t a tut.e of l ir..iL=l ti ons and pa yment. of l/2 of the t ut2 l 2ss essnents with su r ety bond for the bal ence t her Po f . Hence , petitioner ' s appea l. j\ssa il ed i s t.h (:: V'lli.dity and cotTH~tn css of the assessment s for deficiency incoQc nnd advance J
DECI...ilCl: - CTA CJ. ~;E J:J("). 6 59 - 3- sales t ~xes - th~ issue for decision. The records show that upon order of' this Court as moved by pe titioner, all t~le pertinent recdrds and documents whj. ch were seized and in .the possession of the Ccnstabu l 2ry-Revenue-Cu stoms SGrvice Group including those bearing on the instant case were for .,..rarded 2nd deli veren t.o .I :he cus t:cd::l of t!Jis Court under covering l etter date~ October 12, 1959 of the Executive CoordinRtor of the Servic~ Group, available for petltioner 1 s examination and scrutiny. T~is notwithstanding , petitioner would find ar.. i :-;s.uc out of the "s a les invoices and ufficial rcceirLs covering the period frnm J anuary 1, 1953 t o Scpte~ber 1958" allegedly sei~ed but net e>mo n<J the n :> cur. ents brought to tl:e Court , u�~ercby "renderi ng i: cl~;o~.si;:-:le for petitioner to erroneous asse~�sr:v:nt." Tl'~e ste>rve ling ,qgitatic�n therefor would persist as ~ disturbing pre-occu- p0.ticn of ':.he pr:!:itioncr thrntlgh 2 11 t!,~ 20 years ncnetheless, .-Je find ill.ogic the irnpre"'sion pre- G5
DECISION - CT!'. C''.~~E t:C. 6 59 .... 4 - cipit0tely bro'3ched that the sought for 11 invoices . and receipts 11 could he the sole evident.iary basis� in bashing every conceiv2rle illegality in the <Iuestior..ed asses;-:;rnents. And, neither should it be narrowly or naively viewed as an excuse for pe~ .� titioner from further bearing c~e burden of p ro- ving its cause of action. Recourse to other means or modes of a8certaining the truth of its allegation is Jfforded under the existing Rul es. But, the rc svondent 1 s findir..gs are not short of specific suu.�ort in term s c�f t.rcct2ble clata and records oprnly laid and disclosed for PX ~ mination ,,_;ld verj fic,,,t_ion. Suffice i t to .st�1 te 1 howPver, th~t townrds the end of t~P two dec?des of the pendency of t'r:Js "'l-�.,;ea l, retitio ;-;e r �,.;cu.ld still fi~d tr.c "n~".E:d :�:or mere tin~e to s;o over the volurninolL> 'Doc:}:>:, of c:tccounts und r:.:::cords in the cu;.:;tody of the court. 11 (Ietitioner�~ Urqent Hot ions t�-.o P'�,�t- P ">ri �J��� - 2c: rn~-�� �c:--fi''-/R- ! ... _.__ '- l ..._;~ .. J. .. _ ""~ ..._. _.. 1 r.... __l. .. ,' LT .-...".. 1~J ,-~,..o. c-_, r":i . -J 1 __ I'P� 288-:~90 CT.". T'-.e c crr:...3 ; i\uJu.�t 18 1 J979, p. 31':2 Cr"\i... Reccrds). Tris Court h3cl coyly ucc.<~iesced policy of the courts to expedite the dispos~l of 9G
DECI:..:lJOF 659 CTT'~ CA:::E - 5- casE.s to prr. v~nt �l:heir docLets from Decomiog clogg-ed, and i t is incumbc~t u~on parties , espLcially plain- tiff to t.u}:e tr~ e :Lr. i tiai::ive in the prortlpt dis pose 1 of c ases as 0uty to themselves, to the�court and (M as igl Rt v. Mayor of P0so.y Ci t-.y 1 10 �1 Fhil. 319; cit ec' in 1 0 1 :.'~CRA 651) .. To dispel any sprouting impccs sicn , as seems to ']E.c-,r.s, r�r~�t:_ t.ic~rwr remn i nr:: d in ir:Lpoter:t ,:_:tnguish yet trcubl~d ~t ~oshio~ing possib~llli~3 out of One can thus i:ound: " Te st. .i :-::cni<:J l and c~c cn r:tcnte. r~r sv.idc:.��ce pr.L~~.3 .;-;-_t~t'd J..)~,. ~.l"'J..::-~ r;_:.:~~- C'.C.\1 ft:-nt ~}"';_(,.' tJ �-,t~ f.leti- tio ne: r 1,._-rcL: rc::--,:_1~ e:;c c:'tlci:. �:J �:�h�: 'fC< rs in ..... CJ-tlr~- tic�n L~1.c.- fc::!.J.c; ,i_YiQ t -�x.c~J-, l~? i1 c.;~l~~.. e ~-ft~~icl1 1. ,_ lc;53 � 1954 l:'!:)S ~ lr~l;- l s ':�7 ._. l -' ��:7'1~\~ --.r; L't ... :--1eclr�rr.::rJ j r .~.L:.:;r::c:- ~.tr('.. cl(.::..r~.J" t;hO'r!D in lhc c : :n~:-u tc. d n ns rr,;~c1c :.;y the sc id 97
D::CIS::LCF - 6- ~liF<. (:1)((-:r~ ir1cts ir~ c:lu ~~ ::_:�Jg th(-"' ~._):.:>.~. ir� tl-1rreof, ,...,6 ( r.:.-.-v.....i.....!-.:,.,.--). ...... ... _r,_., . l� nJ.~ ~ - ._,...... ;,rr r.,r_, ,~t-.,_::,e tc ' lcc:.r~ -~, .. T t_f~j.,._ .. . _ ... ....:;1\t";". �) - ~ �--"- _, I . _ ... ..._._.._ )....;- & 27, ~~ge~ 11 6 & 1 1 7, Vo l a 1 1 DI~ Rcc0rds , p~g 7 t0 1 0 Tsn , ta~e~ during the hPar i ng on .\u::,c~,t: 1~~ , 1S7~') 'tFirt ~:5irl ~E: o� -Lt'1r-"l .<�cjic1 BI~<. e.Y.:.:..:Ct~itlE.;-,:-:; ci J c:; o ._) :~0 1.\r trl~:~ t pet-. it.: i c�" L ... 2..- t1 �~~ .::1~ jr"!JJO!. te .r. . delibnratc l y u ~derstatcd its 2ctu0 l im- �yf� ,r�,-" ( 1 �"3 .lt-o' �� +"-"ut l � n �...._ �J. '"".1....> f---U-.r.-� ,-, u,-..,-. ....... .4.. !-�'11. r~-� l' �� �J. .i.�ir�n � ~ .I. \ ~ �. .._.. ..._ ......; � :1 ....) t.o 1957 ) thns n:-st~ l tir'rJ i:; iU; Li.lt;rp to r.e rr::1. 0 rt: ;y 1d p<:..y t C<:; :t" rr�:c t 3 d V c' rlC....f' .. ;:::). es t o:X cue t.l1"':: 9<)Vern:ncnt . (.'::88 ':,:or}:::CJCC t S ,.r.. "'') ' ',;:; �, , 1 7 1 O rl.:. c...�...�� �:"11"'."1'l. .,,....1,-: ~ .) I J..-'l.- � l. l C <":. J_ Vn I �.~ .1.L � I 2T.,1'."t>'\. P.<-,C o ) 'l' }; � t o t l 1 VC:J l l.IC o:f pE.t:itL::�:er 1 ~-; ir.~porL.i t i.~'fl:J \�Ihich l t f, .i.lcc1 tc cJ.ccL.:1 r e du.cir1'j t11C l.:'Prioc'l ir '�J IJr: :;t ir_-;;-, c...J:'!.,; c:CS fc;llc,-~ ;EJ: 1953 � ". 0 p 400 , 0 1 8 ., tl8 19 5 '1 � 233 , 437. 02 1955 � " �. 318, 442 ~ 21 1956 � ,. 0:0 , 29 1a 49 19::>7 � � � ..c1.or T 0 'I' i\ L � " _ G�1 , 226.87 (i:�leElOr ...1nr1 Ui�l i'~e:.-c;~r)~-l~icnt Po p . JS-1 ) p 1 " 1 56 I 4 1 6 .. 0 7 .. 3 ; CTt. J. r.~ cc::C'3 I t is incon~ruo u s f~r ~~titicDcr to prove purticular i!1fc:ren c e of ,:[ac t c ar: h e:1V e n o effect ., .J
DSCI.Sim; - CTA C2'~::�E lJC. 659 - 7- even shculd it constitute a prima facie case, or should as further proof be oxcus~d by a ruJA of lav:., 11 (31 C.J.S. 720-721) 0 It may be nece6sary to repeat what ~o often may h2ve been said an~ what so plain ly apply to the case at b~r.. The burdca of proof is on tl:e 1-. 2:1xp ayer conLt:.sting the validi t:y or corr c ct-.ness of �an asse:::sr~;en t to prove not onJy th c:~ t the Cormnis:.:;:Lcncr cf Intccn.J.l Revcr~ue Gut i erre~ v. Collector of Int~rnal R2venuc, CTh of Tax Appeals, L- 2 3 676 1 April 27 1 1967, 19 SCRA 903) othervd..se tho pr.csu;nption in favor of the correctness cf tax assP3sment stands. (Imter- provincial Auto-bus Co., Inc. v .. Collector of Internal i~f!venue, L-67<11 1 LTur:uu.ry 31, 1956, 98 Phil . 2) 0; Coll<'ctr;r of In terna 1 Revenue v. Bohol Land Trar:s ~;orLlticn Co .. , L-13099 c.:.nd L-l31J62, April 29, 1960, lC7 M~il., 9fi5). The burden o~ u~on the pe~i ~ionc r allPging i t to be sq, and i t In the c 0se ~t L2r 1 petilioner h '~ not pre- sented any evidr::>nce of t'he �rslevance 2ad c omp<:tence )
DECISIC'I:J CT~ CASE NO . 659 - 8- re qu ired, ar..d as such, "that .if he fa ils ::>at.is- fac-tori 2.::/ to sli.:J'.v the fact upon \vhicl) he iJases ~1 is clairr, the dPfc ndcmt is under no oblic;ation to prove his r:~xcept i ons or c1efen.se. 11 '(Belen v. Belen, 13 Phil. ?J2). Further, if the facts hdve not produced a velid c n~ e as ~ consequence of frus- trati o n to secure the supporting evidencP ~~ch fru ~ tr 2 ti on ~oes no~ oper ate to automa~ically prove pet.i -Li une r 1 s c <" c~ E' o For such default tr,e action mu�jt fi..iil ar,d l.:.his Court C�:tn not afford a remedy, it having no ~ower nor duty to provide i t . Be it of cold comfort, " ;rh e courts cannot constitute themselves gua rdi ~ns of ?erscns who are not le') a lly incor:tpe-Lent. Men may do foolish things, r'!ake ridicl.llon:> contracts, u.se .niser::-able judgme nts, and lose ~1oney by -tJ:em - inc'leed, a l l they have in the wor1~; hut nnL for th~ t n l cne c a n the law i~te J. V Pne and Lestore. There must ~e , in a.__..:;_r,_l_ l.c:.':::... o n, v ( v ;�--,-}. n'�~�:.: \'l'' 1 � 3 5 i'h _; l � 7 (-, 9) � . t. ~- tC..:.'l I According l y, we hold that petitioner st2nds l i e ble for thE~ _::hyrncnt of t~!e .sw-;1 of Pl51, 579.00 '"
- - l ; :_. r ~ ~ -~ ~ '' c _. , _:._. ,J ..l ( 9 Cr/e -'�' �;unc:c ... , ]_ r� \ ,r. ~~- :I ti :. .. l l . . '1 Y'.:: �\,� (l t . . ,_) .J.._; 0 :._. 1~ i L .i c ~- J c� :!' � � Ci t y , ..... U ,-c~ '/. r~ 1 , - . .l ,':lP~' ~- t:Z)?,& ~� ___,/ . ~ ' .. :. '., - � -,,, :~.e-; ~('- I J:, ' ' ' .. soc :i t- r_:� � Tu-:.:r~ r~ i 01
More in CTA Decisions
- TBG DEVELOPMENT PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6852)
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAGAYAN REP. BY HONORABLE GOVERNOR ALVARO T. ANTONIO AND EMILIA L. IRINGAN, in her capacity as Provincial Treasurer v. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., (SMART)(CTA Case No. AC-92)
- TSPI MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10691)
- CTA Case No. EB CRIM-9 (Decision)(CTA Case No. EB CRIM-9)
- CTA Case No. 3015 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 3015)
- BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6890)
- NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Represented by its Regional Manager, JONATHAN D. YAZON v. CITY GOVERNMENT OF CABANATUAN, CITY ASSESSOR AND CITY TREASURER OF CABANATUAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA(CTA Case No. AC-275)
- HEADSTRONG PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY JAMES MARTIN AND COMPANY PHILIPPINES, INC.) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6986)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.