COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DIAMOND DRILLING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC CT A EB NO. 3151 (CTA CASE NO. 10661) COMMISSIONER OF INT ERNAL REVENUE , Petitioner, Members: -versus- P resen t: Ringpis-Liban, P.J., Bacorro-Villen a, Modesto-San P edro, R e yes - Faj a rd o, C u i - D av i d, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles, ]]. DIAMOND DRILLING CORPORATION P ro m ul g a t e d : OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ.: Before this Court is the Petition for Review flied by petitioner within the extended period on May 30,20251 assailing the D ecision dated January 20,20252 and April24, 2025,3 promulgated by Third Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 10661 entided Diamond Drilling Corporation ofthe Philippines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present the present Petition for Review is GRANTED. / ' Rollo, CTJ\ EB o. 3151, pp. 7-15, with Annexes. 2 Ibid., pp. 17-40. 3 Ibid., pp.42-45.

DECISIO'.: CT.\ EB 0:0.3151 (CT.\ Case '.:o. 10661) Accordingly, respondent's \'\!arrant of Distraint and/ or Levy dated August 26, 2021 is LIFTED and SET ASIDE. Moreover, for being void, the deficiency VAT assessment issued against petitioner, the total amount of P6,301,195.74, inclusive of interest, for the period January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018, is CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED." The dispositive portion of the Resolution dated 1\ptil 24, 2025 reads: "WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." THE PARTIES Petitioner is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue who holds office at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) National Office Building at Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City and is being represented in this case by the Legal Officers of the Legal Division, BIR, Revenue Region 8A-Makati, with office address at 36'h Floor Exportbank Plaza, Sen. Gil Puyat Ave. corner Chino Roces Ave., Makati City. Respondent Diamond Drilling Corporation of the Philippines is a corporation organized and existing under the law of the Philippines, with address at 20th Floor, Lepanto Building, 8747 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City4 THE FACTS The facts of the case as found by the Court in Division are as follows: 5 "On October 17, 2018, petitioner6 received the Letter of Authority (L01\) SN: eLA201500088201 (LOA-V08-2018- 00000446) dated October 10, 2018, authotizing Revenue Officer (RO) Airene Espanto and Group Supervisor Ricaredo Balderas of Revenue Region No. 008 - Makati City to examine petitioner'/' 4 Dcci:-;ion, p. 2. -" Dcci:;ion, pp. 19-23, citation:; omitted. (, Rc:-rondcnt hen:in.

Page 3 oflS DECISION CT.\ EB NO. 3151 (CT.\ Case No. 10661) books of accounts and other accounting records for VAT for the period January 1, 2018 to June 30,2018. On June 18, 2019, petitioner received the Notice for Informal Conference (NIC) dated June 7, 2019, with attached S11mmary of Findings and Details ofDisterepancy. On July 17, 2019, peuuoner submitted documents to reconcile the BIR's assessment for deficiency VAT as contained in the NIC. Thereafter, on March 11, 2020, petitioner received the Pre!iminat)l AsJeSsment Notice (PAN) dated March 10, 2020 with attached Details of Discrepancies from the respondent,7 finding it liable for deficiency VI\T amounting to P6,089,434.47, inclusive of interest, for the 1" semester of the taxable year 2018, xxx xxx On July 14, 2020, respondent issued a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) with Details ofDiscrepancies, with Assessment Notice No. VT-ELA88201-18-20-0065, signed by Regional Director Glen A Geraldina of Revenue Region No. SB -South NCR, finding petitioner liable for VAT in the amount ofP6,301,195.74, inclusive of interest, for the 1~t semester of the taxable year 2018, xxx xxx Thereafter, the BIR issued the questioned WDL dated /1.ugust 26, 2021, and the same was constructively served to the petitioner on September 30, 2021. Petitioner filed its Petition for Review \vith Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction on November 2, 2021. The case was initially raffled to this Court's First Division. Petitioner's Prayer for the lsJttanre of a Temporary Restraining Order and/ or Writ ofPreliminary {IIljitnction] was initially set for hearing on January 20,2022, but was reset to February 15,2022, and later reset to, and held on, March 10, 2022. Relative thereto, petitioner presented its witness, Mr. Michael Angelo E. Alberto, its Accounting Officer, who testified on direct examination by way of a Judicial Affidavit/ : Petitioner herein.

DECISI00: CT"\ EB NO. 3151 (CT"\ Case i\io. 10661) During the /\larch 10, 2022 hearing, the Court likewise directed the parties to appear before the Philippine Mediation Center-Court of Tax Appeals (PMC-CTA) on April 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to A.M. No. 11-1-5-SC-PHILJA (Re: Interim Guidelines for Implementing Mediation in the Court of Tax Appeals. However, the PMC-CTi\. later issued the No Agreement to Mediate dated April 19, 2022, stating that the parties decided not to have their case mediated. Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence was flied on March 25, 2022, to which respondent posted his Comment (To Petitioner's Forma! Offer ofEvidenre dated Marrh 25, 2022) on April1, 2022. In the Resolution dated May 24, 2022, the Court admitted all of petitioner's offered exhibits, and granted petitioner's Prayer for the iJsuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/ or W tit of Preliminary [In;imttion] treating the same as a Motion for Suspension of Collection of Taxes, subject to the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the amount claimed. Considering that petitioner failed to post a cash or surety bond as directed in the Resolution dated May 24, 2022, the Court in the Resolution dated July 5, 2022, withdrew and set aside the granting of petitioner's i\1otion for Suspemion of Collection of Taxes under the Resolution dated May 24, 2022. Petitioner then flied a Motion for Partial Remmideration of the Honorable Comt's Order dated 24 May 2022 on June 24, 2022, while respondent failed to file comment thereto. In the Resolution dated October 3, 2022, the Court denied petitioner's Motion on the ground of mootness. On April 13, 2022, respondent posted his Motion to A.dmit Answer with Manifestation, while petitioner failed to file comment thereto. In the Resolution dated July 5, 2022, the Court granted the Motion and admitted the attached Answer (U/ith Spedal and Affirmative Defenses rvith Grounds to Dismiss for L:tck ofJutisdittion), xxx XXX. Respondent transmitted the BIR records of the present case on July 4, 2022, consisting of 440 pages in one (1) folder. The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on September 22, 2022, but upon petitioner's U72ent Motion to Rmt Hearing flied on September 8, 2022, was reset to, and held on November 10, 2022. Prior thereto, Petitioner's Pre-Trial Bn�ef was filed on November 3, /

DECISIO?\ CT\ EB NO. 3151 (CT.\ Case No. 10661) 2022, while Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief witb Manifestation was submitted on November 4, 2022. In the Resolution dated Januat}' 6, 2023, for failure of the parties to file their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, the Court held that the parties' right to enter into admissions and is deemed waived, and that the Pre-Trial is terminated. The Pre-Trial Order dated Februaq 10, 2023 was then issued. Trial then ensued, with both parties presenting and offering their respective documental}' and testimonial evidence. XXX XXX XXX The present case was submitted for decision on Janua17 31, 2024." On J anuaq 20, 2025, the Court in Division issued the assailed Decision. On Februat}' 4, 2025, petitioner filed by registered mail his Motion for Reconsideration8 seeking reconsideration of the Decision dated January 20, 2025. On Februat}' 12, 2025, respondent filed its Comment/Opposition on the Motion for Reconsideration9 On April 24, 2025, the Court in Division issued the assailed Resolution. On May 16, 2025, the Court En Bane received petitioner's "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review,"10 praying for an extension of fifteen (15) days from May 17, 2025 or until June 1, 2025, within which to file the Petition for Review. On May 30, 2025, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review. 11 On July 2, 2025, the Court En Bam� issued a Minute Resolution, 12 ordering petitioner to transmit thru email, a Portable Document Format (PDF) copy of the Petition for Review, within five (5) days from notice, pursuant to CTA En Bane Resolution No. 8-2024i/ K Docket, CT.\ C:1:;c No. 10661, pp. ...J-93-502. ') lbiJ., pp. 510-517. HI CT.\ EH 1\o. 31 S1, pp. 1-4 11 Ibid., pp.7-IS, with .\nncxc~. I~ Ibid., P� 61.

DECISIO'-i CT.\ EB NO. 3151 (CT.-\ Case No. 10661) On July 4, 2025, the Court En Banr received the email transmittal13 of petitioner's Petition for Review. On September 12, 2024, the Court En Banr issued a Minute Resolution1" noting the email transmittal of petitioner's Petition for Review dated July 4, 2025, and ordering respondent to file Comment/Opposition on the Petition for Review, not a Motion to Dismiss, within five (5) days from notice. On September 23, 2025, the Court En Bane received respondent's "Comment/Opposition (On Petitioner's Petition for Review)."15 On October 16, 2025, the Court En Banr issued a Minute Resolution 16 which noted respondent's "Comment/ Opposition (On Petitioner's Petition for Review)" and referred the case to the Philippine Mediation Center-Court of Tax Appeals (PMC-CTA) for mediation pursuant to Section II of the Intetim Guidelines for Implementing Mediation in the Court ofTax Appeals. On November 20, 2025, the Court En Batte received "PMC-CTA Form 6- No Agreement to l\.Iediate"17 stating that the parties decided not to have their case mediated by PMC-CfA. On December 10, 2025, the Court En Bane issued a Minute Resolution 18 which noted the "PMC-CTA Form 6-No Agreement to Mediate" and ordered the instant case submitted for decision. THE ISSUE ((Whether or not the Court in Division erred in cancelling the deficiency VAT assessment in view of the violation ofrespondent>s right to due process.� THE ARGUMENTS Petitioner claims the FLD /FAN was validly served to respondent's registered address. The FLD /FAN dated July 14, 2020 was served by mail to petitioner's registered address at 344 South Superhighway, Sunvalley, Paraiiaque City considering the taxpayer cannot be found at its registered address. This address was the one on record with Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 52- Paraiiaque at the time of issuance. Respondent only updated its BIR registration u Ibid., r- 62 1-l Ibid., p. 63 I; lbiJ., PP� 65-T. j(, Ibid., p. 78. " Ibid., p. 94 IS Ibid., p. 95

DECISIO'-' CT~\ EB '-'0. 3151 (CL\ Ca,e '-:o. 10661) on January 5, 2021, transferring to RDO No~ 50- South Makati and reflecting a new address at 20'" Floor, Lepanto Building, Paseo de Roxas, Makati City. Thus, at the time the FAN was issued and mailed, the BIR validly relied on the official registration data available. The service of the F.AN to the last known and registered address of respondent is presumed valid, effective, and binding upon herein respondent. Petitioner asserts that respondent's inaction in timely notifying the BIR of its change of address bars it from claiming that the assessment was invalidly served. Moreover, pet1t1oner insists that assuming respondent never actually received the FLD/FAN, the Court should consider the WDL dated 1\ugust 26, 2021 as the final assessment notice for all legal intents and purposes, since the \VDL was constructively served and eventually received by respondent. Conversely, respondent states that the grounds and arguments of petitioner are mere reiteration of the grounds and arguments raised in the Answer, Memorandum, and Motion for Reconsideration, filed before the Court in Division, which were all duly considered and pronounced without merit by the Court in Division~ Respondent claims that it did not receive the FLD/FAN~ Petitioner failed to prove that the FLD/FAN was mailed and that respondent actually received the same. The evidence on record show that the BIR thru Revenue Officer Airene Espanto, personally served the LOA, NIC and PAN at petitioner's new address, i.e. 20'" Floor, Lepanto Building, 8747 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City. Despite this knowledge of respondent's location, when the FLD/FAN was mailed, however, it was mailed by RO Espanto to respondent's old address at 344 South Superhighway, Sunvalley, Paranaque City. Lastly, respondent claims that since the FLD/FA.N is void, the WDL is likewise void and cannot be enforced against petitioner. THE RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC Timeliness ofthe Petition for Review On January 22, 2025, the petitioner received the Decision of the Court in Division. On February 4, 2025, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Decision. On April 24, 2025, the Court in Division issued the assailed Resolution denying petitioner's motion. Said Resolution was received by petitioner on May 2, 2025/

DECISION CTc\ EB "JO. 3151 (CL\ Case :\io. 10661) From receipt of the said Resolution on May 2, 2025, petitioner had until May 17, 2025 within which to file the Petition for Review before the Court En Bane. On May 16, 2025, petitioner filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review," praying that petitioner be given an additional period of fifteen (15) days from May 17,2025, or until June 1, 2025 within which to file his Petition for Review. The Motion was granted in the Minute Resolution dated May 19, 202519 The "Petition for Review" was filed on May 30, 2025. Hence, this Petition for Review was timely filed. The assessments issued to respondent are void for violation of respondent's right to due process of law. After due consideration of the facts, issues and arguments raised by the parties, the Court En Bane finds no reason to reverse the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court in Division. The Court En Bam� notes that the arguments presented herein are a mere rehash of the arguments offered by petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration before the Court in Division. Nonetheless, the Court En Bam� shall pass upon petitioner's arguments. A review of the records of the case discloses that the notices issued by the BIR, z~e. L0)\,20 Notice for the Presentation/Submission of Documents/Records,"' Reminder before Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum,22 Notice for Informal Conference,23 Preliminary Assessment Notice,24 Formal Letter of Demand,25 Assessment Notice,26 Warrant of Distraint and Levy,27 Warrant of Garnishment,28 were all addressed to 344 South Super Highway, Sunvalley, City of Parar1aque. Respondent claims in its Petition for Review and as testified by RO Espanto, the LOA, NIC and PAN were personally served at respondent's new address, i.e. 20'h Floor, Lepanto Building, 8747 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City. That it, however, did not receive the FLD/FANf"' 1�1 Rollo, CT.\ EH J'.:o. 3151. p. 6. 211 J�:xhibit "R-1". ~ 1 l�:xhibit ''R-2''. ~~Exhibit "R-3". ~.> J�:xhibit "R-5". 2~ Exhibit "R-8". 2~ J�:xhibit "H.-9". 21, Exhibit "R-10". 27 J �:xhibit "R-12" 2il Exhibit "R-1--t".

DEC!S!Ol\i CT"\ EB 1'-:0. 3151 (CL\ Case "<o. 10661) Section 228 of the NIRC, as amended, in relation to Section 3 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, provides the due process requirements in an assessment. Section 228 provides: Protesting ofAssessment -When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall notify first the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, That a pre-assessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: XXX XXX XXX The taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Such assessment may be protested administratively by a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. XXX XXX XXX Since receipt of assessment notices is denied and controverted by the respondent, the burden of proof is shifted to the CIR to prove through a preponderance of evidence, that respondent or its authorized representative/ s indeed received the subject assessment. This was categorically declared by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. T Shuttle Services, Inc.,29 to wit: "1\s can be gleaned from the [Section 228 of the NIRC and Section 3 of RR No. 12-99), service of the P1\N or the FAN to the taxpayer may be made by registered mail. Under Section 3(v), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, there is a disputable presumption that 'a / 2'1 CJ.R. )\..'o. 240729,24 .\ugu:>t 2020.

DECISION CT~\ EB 1':0. 3151 (CT~\ Case No. 10661) letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.' However, the presumption is subject to controversion and direct denial, in which case the burden is shifted to the party favored by the presumption to establish that the subject mailed letter was actually received by the addressee. In view of respondent's categorical denial of due receipt of the PAN and the FAN, the burden was shifted to the CIR to prove that the mailed assessment notices were indeed received by respondent or by its authorized representative." In the case of Estate oftbe Late Juliana Diez V da. De Gabriel vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revemre,30 the Supreme Court held that it is a requirement of due process that the taxpayer must actually receive the assessment. "Respondent argues that an assessment is deemed made for the purpose of giving effect to such assessment when the notice is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer to effectuate the assessment, and there is no legal requirement that the taxpayer receive said notice xxx Although there is no specific requirement that the taxpayer should receive the notice within said period, due process requires at the very least that such notice actually be received. "In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. PaJCor Realry and Development Corporation, we had occasion to say: An assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period. It also signals the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer. To enable the taxpayer to determine his remedies thereon, due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer. XXX. It appearing that the person liable for the payment of the tax did not receive the assessment, the assessment could not become final and executory." The Court En Bane agrees with the ruling of the Court in Division that petitioner was unable to present substantial evidence that the subject FLD /FAN was properly served on, and received by respondent or by its authorized/ oo c;.It No. 155541,Jmuary '27, 2004.

DECISION CT.\ EB NO. 3151 (CT.\ Case No. 10661) representatives, thus there is no valid assessment and the WDL dated August 26, 2021 should not be given any effect. WI e quote with approval the pertinent portions of the assailed Decision:31 "Based on the foregoing provisions, part of due process requirements in the issuance of tax assessments is that the concerned taxpayer be informed in writing of the law and facts upon which the assessment was made, and that the same taxpayer be given the opportunity to respond and contest the said assessment. The above law is implemented under Section 3.1.4 ofRe No. 12-99, as amended by RR Nos. 18-2013 and 7-2018, which requires that a FLD/FAN should be issued to a taxpayer, viz: "SEC. 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment- 3.1 Mode of procedure in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment: XXX XXX XXX 3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Final i\ssessment Notice (FLD/FAN). The Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) shall be issued by the Commissioner of his duly authorized representative. The FLD/FAN calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax or taxes shall state the facts, the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the assessment is based, otherwise, the assessment shall be void (see illustration in ANNEX 'B' hereof.)" (Emphasis added) According to respondent, the FLD/FAN was sent to petitioner via private courier, i.e. LBC Express, Inc., "because personal service was not practicable at that time because of the COVID-19 Pandemic." Relative thereto, Section 3.1.7 of the same RR reads, in part, as follows: 3.1.7 Modes of Service. The nouce (PAN/FLD/FAN/FDDA) to the taxpayer herein~ �' 1 Decision, pp. 15-19.

DEC!SIO~ CT.\ EB ~0. 3151 (CT.\ Ca,e i':o. 10661) required may be served by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative through the following modes: (i) The notice shall be served through personal service by delivering personally a copy thereof to the party at his registered or known address or wherever he may be found. A known address shall mean a place other than the registered address where business activities of the party are conducted or his place of residence. In case personal service is not practicable, the notice shall be served by substituted service or by mail. XXX XXX XXX (iii) Service by mail is done by sending a copy of the notice by registered mail to the registered mail to the registered or known address of the party with instmction to the Postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (1 0) days, in undelivered. A copy of the notice may also be sent through reputable professional courier service. If no registry or reputable professional courier service. If no registry or reputable professional courier service is available in the locality of the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail. The server shall accomplish the bottom portion of the notice. He shall also make a written report under oath before a Notary Public or any person under oath before a Notary Public or any person authorized to administer oath under Section 14 of the NIRC, as amended, setting forth the manner, place and date of service, the name of the person /barangay official/professional courier service company who received the same and such other relevant information. The registry receipt issued by the post office or the official receipt issued by the professional courier company containing sufficiently identifiable details of the transaction shall constitute sufficient proof of mailing and shall be attached to the case docket. XXX XXX f"' xxx." (Emphases added)

DECISIO'i CT~~ EB NO. 3151 (CT~~ Case No. 10661) Based on the foregoing provisions, one of the modes of service of the FLD /FAN is sending the same through a reputable professional courier service. In such case (as in other cases), the server shall accomplish the bottom portion of the same notice. The server shall also make a written report under oath before a Notary Public or any person authorized to administer oath under Section 14 of the NIRC, as amended, setting forth the manner, place and date of service, the name of the professional courier company who received the same and such other relevant information. Moreover, the official receipt issued by the professional courier company containing sufficiently identifiable details of the transaction shall constitute sufficient proof of mailing and shall be attached to thew case docket. Likewise, an assessment must contain not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment within the prescribed period. It also signals the time when penalties and interests begrn to accrue against the taxpayer. To enable the taxpayer to determine its available remedies thereon, due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer. The ruling in the G]M Phi!ippinescase is instructive that if the taxpayer denies having received an assessment from the BIR, it then becomes incumbent upon the latter to prove by competent evidence that such notice was indeed received by the addressee. While it is true that an assessment is made when the notice is sent within the prescribed period, the release, mailing, or sending of the same must still be clearly and satisfactorily proved. In this case, petitioner directly denies receipt of the FLD /FAN, hence, the burden of proving the adHaf receipt of the same lies with respondent. To prove that the FLD/FAN was served to petitioner, via private courier, respondent merely presented LBC Receipt No. 1268 7940 7726. However, aside from the official receipt issued by the professional courier company, Section 3.1.7 of RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR Nos. 18-2013 and 7-2018, requires that 'The seroer shalf atcomp!ish the bottom pmtion ofthe notice. He shalf also make a written report under oath before a Notary Public or anyperson authorized to administer oath under Section 14 of tbe NIRC, as amended, setting fmtb tbe manner, plate and date ofseroice, the name oftbe person/ barangay offida!/professionay

DECISIO'-: CT~\ EB NO. 3151 (CT~\ Case C-:o. 10661) cozmer servzre company who rereived the same and such other relevant information." In this case, the bottom portion of the FAN has an "Acknowledgement of Receipt" portion, but was not accomplished. Moreover, the aforementioned written report under oath setting forth the manner, place and date of service, the name of professional courier service company who received the same and such other relevant information was not presented in evidence. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that while the official receipt (OR) of the professional courier company, i.e. LBC Express, Inc. was attached to the case docket, the same does not contain sufficiently justifiable details of the transaction, as likewise required under aforequoted provisions of RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR Nos. 18-2013 and 7-2018. More particularly, the said OR does not specifically indicate what is being sent to petitioner, for it merely states "Said to Contain DOC ONL". To the Court's mind, the general reference to "DOC" may mean any document, other than the subject FLD/FA.N." Failure to prove that the FLD /FAN was indeed received by respondent renders the assessment null and void. Hence, respondent's right to be informed of the assessments issued against it has been violated. Tax assessments issued in violation of the due process rights of a taxpayer are null and void." The FAN did not become final, hence, it cannot be enforced against respondent, and petitioner has no right to collect the same. In view of the foregoing, since there are no new matters or issues raised in the Petition for Review before the Court En Bane and there being no reversible error committed by the Court in Division, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Decision and Resolution. ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~. --t.~.... ' ....._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice -'2 Coti"IIIJiJ.riolltr ~f Intemal fun'll!lf r_r. At'OII PmdmlJ 1\fam({thllllillg, !111 . d Jtq., G .R. ~o~. 201398-99 and 201418-19, ( ktobcr 03, 2018.

DECISIO:\ CT.\ EB NO. 3151 (CT.\ Case 0Jo. 10661) WE CONCUR: \ ~ ~ {: ~ -Ffi,f/trk rf! MARIAN IVY REYES{JpAJAiiDO Associate Justice LAN~~AVID Associate Justice co~:f�~~~ Associate Justice HENRY ~~~GELES Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~.~J.......__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice