CANLUBANG WATERWORKS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

'- REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Second Division CANLUBANG CTA CASE N0.10682 WATERWORKS CORPORATION, Members: Petitioner, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, -versus- MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, APR 1 Z 2024 Respondent. X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 10 January 2024), filed on February 2, 2024, with petitioner's Comment/Opposition [to Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue 's Motion for Reconsideration dated 31 January 2024, filed on February 26, 2024. The Motion is bereft of merit. Respondent mainly rehashes arguments he previously raised which have already been addressed in the assailed Decision, dated January 10, 2024 ("Assailed Decision"). We need not discuss these again. 1 Respondent's only new arguments are that (a) the assessment against petitioner attained finality as the latter failed to protest the Final Assessment Notice ("FAN")/Formal Letter of Demand ("FLD"); and (b) in Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation2 ("Shell"), the Supreme Court stated that respondent's issuance of an assessment that is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") tolls the prescriptive period for the collection of taxes. See Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Velasco, G.R. Nos. I09645 and 11 2564, Resolution, March 4, 1996; see also Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 Resolution , January 22, 2007 ; see also Roque v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188456, Resolution , February I0, 2020. G.R. Nos. 197945 & 204119-20, July 9, 2018.

RESOL UT I O N CTA Case No . I0682 Page 2 of2 ... .j Neither argument deserves consideration. First, what is at issue here is the prescription of respondent's right to collect taxes. Assuming arguendo that his argument regarding the finality of assessment is correct, the same would thus have no bearing on Our ruling. Second, nothing in Shell supports respondent's claim that the issuance of an assessment tolls the prescriptive period. In the passage respondent quotes from Shell, the Supreme Court enumerates the requirements for respondent's answer to aPetitionfor Reviewfiled before the CTA to be treated as a collection suit for the purpose of suspending the prescriptive period for tax collection. It identifies the situation "the [Commissioner of Internal Revenue] issued an assessment and the taxpayer appealed the same to the CTA" as one of three such requirements, all of which must obtain. Nowhere does it equate the administrative issuance of an assessment which is appealable to the CTA with the filing of a judicial collection suit. In brief, Shell offers no basis whatsoever for respondent's contention, which must thus be rejected. We accordingly see no reason to reverse Our findings in the Assailed Decision. FOR THESE REASONS, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 10 January 2024) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated January 10, 2024, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: ~-~ ~'--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice