cta_decision CTA Case No. 99289928 2024-03-07

BAYUGAN FARMERS MILLERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND ATTY. NASSER A. TANGGOR-OIC REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REVENUE REGION NO. 17 (Formerly UDK-SP 025)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION BAYUGAN FARMERS CTA Case No. 9928 MILLERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, Members: Petitioner, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, A cting Ch airperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND ATTY. NASSER A. TANGGOR-OIC REGIONAL Promulgated: DIRECTOR, REVENUE REGION NO. 17, Respondents. MAR 07 2024 }{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - . - - - - - - - - - }{ !J. '{J,.... DECISION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review filed on March 29 , 2019 by petitioner Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose 1 ("Petitioner"), against respondents Commissioner of Internal Revenue (''CIR") and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor- Officer in Charge ("OIC") Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 ("RD Tanggor"), under Section 3(a), Rule 8 ,2 in relation to Section i 1 Docket- Vol. I, pp. I0 to 29. 2 Section 3. Who May Appeal; Period to File Petition. - (a) A pany adversely affected by a decision. ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ru ling ofthe Commissioner of Customs. the Secretary of Finance. the Secretary ofTrade and Industry. the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition fo r review filed with in thirty days after receipt of a copy ofsuch decision or ruling. or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Comm issioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected. the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 Page 2 of20 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 3(a)(2), Rule 43 ofthe Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals4 ("RRCTA"). THE PARTIES Petitioner Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose is a duly registered cooperative with the Cooperative Development Authority ("CDA"), with Registration No. 9520-13003517, and postal address at Andanan, Bayugan City.5 Respondent CIR is vested under the law with the authority to carry out the functions, duties, and responsibilities of said office, including the power to assess and collect all national internal revenue taxes. Respondent Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor is impleaded as the OIC Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 17, Caraga Region of the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"). 6 THE ANTECEDENT FACTS Petitioner was allegedly granted tax exemption under Republic Act ("RA") No. 95207 through Tax Exemption Ruling, June 17, 2010, RDA- RR No. 17- Ruling No. 31-10. The tax exemption is valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of its issuance under Section 8 of Revenue Memorandum Order ("RMO") No. 76-2010.8 On May 7, 2015, prior to the expiration of its tax exemption, petitioner applied for renewal of its tax exemption.9 3 Section]. Cases Within the Jurisdiction qfthe Court in Divisions.- The Court in Divisions shall exercise: i (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the follmving: (I) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments. refunds of internal revenue taxes. fees or other charges. penalties in relation thereto. or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau oflnternal Revenue. where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: Provided. that in case of disputed assessments. the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one hundred eighty day-period under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of allowing the taxpayer to appeal his case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the Commissiona of Internal Revenue on the tax case: Provided. further. that should the taxpayer opt to await the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal Re\'enue on the disputed assessments beyond the one hundred eighty day-period abovementioned. the taxpayer may appeal such tina] decision to the Court under Section 3(a). Rule 8 of these Rules: and Provided. still further. that in the case or claims for refund of taxes erroneously or illegally collected. thl! taxpayer must file a petition for review with the Court prior to the expiration of the two-year period under Section 229 of the National internal Revenue Code.. 'A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA. 5 Petitioner"s Memorandum. Brief Statement of Facts. par. I. Exhibit ��P-12"". Docket- Vol I. pp. 63-72. 6 Petition for Revie''. par. 1.2. Docket- Vol. I. p. II. 7 Philippine Cooperative Code of2008. February 17. 2009. 8 Prescribing the Policies and Guidelines in the Issuance and Monitoring of Certificate ofTax Exemption of Cooperatives. September 27. 2010. 9 As indicated in RO Barcelon �s Memorandum. infra at note 11.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 Page 3 of20 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Despite alleged compliance with all the requirements of RMO No. 76-2010,10 the tax exemption of petitioner was not renewed. On August 19, 2015, Revenue Officer ("RO") Ma. Abelly Barcelon ("RO Barcelon") issued a Memorandum 11 recommending the issuance of a Letter of Authority ("LOA") against petitioner for taxable year ("TY") 20 14. On September 24, 2015, an LOAJ2 was issued by Regional Director Norberta D. Vitug ("RD Vitug"), acting as the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 17 - Butuan City, authorizing RO Barcelon and RO Ma. Flora Aquino ("RO Aquino") to examine petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records forTY 2014. This was served upon petitioner on October 6, 2015. On October 23, 2015, petitioner wrote a Letter addressed to Ma. Jonelle S. Faune, OIC - Revenue District Officer ("RDO Faune") of Revenue District Office ("RDO") No. 104- Bayugan City, pointing to the fact that the latter failed to act on the renewal of the tax exemption. 13 The Letter also pointed out that the LOA was issued in alleged violation of Section 16 of the Joint Rules and Regulations Implementing Articles 60, 61, and 144 of RA No. 9520, which requires authorization from the CDA prior to the conduct of an audit. On October 27, 2015, RO Barcelon prepared a Memorandum Report14 to RDO No. 104, informing the said office that a request had been made from CDA with regard to the investigation and audit of petitioner for TY 2014. On November 3, 2015, Revenue District Officer Casan P. Azis ("RDO Azis") sent a Letter to a certain Genaro D. Ravanera, Jr., 15 purportedly the Regional Director of the CDA for Region XIII, requesting authorization to examine petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records.16 ~ 10 Prescribing the Policies and Guidelines in the Issuance and Monitoring of Certificate of Ta:-,: Exemption of Cooperatives. September 27. 2010. 11 Exhibit ��p.r_ id.. p. 17. 12 Exhibit ��r-s��. id.. p. 18. 13 BIR Records. pp. 152-153. 14 Exhibit .. R-4... id.. p. 155. 15 This is the name as indicated in the Letter. infra at note 16. We note that the reply of the addressee indicated his name as '�Genaro D. Pogata. Jr.:� il~(ra at note 18. 16 Exhibit "R-5... BIR Rt:cords. p. 157.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OlC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 Page 5 of20 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X !'5,254,723.01, inclusive of surcharge arid interest, broken down as follows: Income Tax Basic Surcharge Interest Total VAT 1'435,800.89 1'108,950.22 1'203,372.59 1'748,123.70 Total 2,559,105.03 1,307,718.02 4,506,599.31 1'2,994,905.92 639,776.26 1'1,5 I 1,090.61 1'5,254,723.0 1 1'748,726.48 On August 14,2017, petitioner sent a Letter to RD Tariggor signed by petitioner's Chairmari of the Board, 26 which RD Tariggor referred to as petitioner's "protest" against the BIR deficiency Income arid Value-Added Taxes assessment for TY 2014. On October 12, 2017, petitioner received the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment ("FDDA") dated October 3, 20 17, signed by RD Tariggor.27 On November 10,2017, petitioner filed ari Appeal/Request for Reconsideration28 with the CIR against the FDDA it received on October 12,2017. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT On May 22, 2018, petitioner posted its Petition for Review. 29 On July 19, 2018, the Court required petitioner to pay the full amount of docket fees. 30 Petitioner then posted a Letter relative to the docket fees deficiency of P27,958.98, with enclosed 15 postal money orders from Surigao Post Office on July 30, 2018. 31 On August 23, 2018, the Court sent ariother Letter to petitioner in relation to the payment of docket fees.32 Petitioner posted its Compliance on September 3, 2018.33 On September 24, 2018, petitioner posted ari Urgent Motion to Suspend Collection of Taxes or Issuance of Status Quo 26 BIR Records. p. 275. " 27 FDDA dated October 3. 2017. Exhibit ��P-11"". Docket- Vol. I. p. 62. '"Exhibit ��r-r. id.. pp. 33-45. 09 Docket- Vol. I. pp. I0-29. 30 !d.. p. 84. 31 !d.. pp. 94-98. 33 !d.. pp. 128-129. 33 /d..p.131.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 Page 11 of20 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS Respondents counter that the income and value-added tax assessments have factual and legal bases. They insist that sales of fuel in its gasoline pumping station are a business line not within the scope of its registered activities until February 12, 2015, when its Amended Articles of Cooperation were approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); thus, petitioner can be taxed therein. Respondents argue that all presumptions favor the correctness of tax assessments and that the good faith of tax assessors and the validity of their actions are presumed. THE COURT'S RULING Before delving into the merits of the case, We shall first determine whether the instant Petition for Review was timely filed and whether the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case. The Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA'? has no jurisdiction over the instant Petition. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by the erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, its only power is to dismiss the action.94 Section 7(a)(1) and (2) ofRA No. 1125,95 as amended by RA No. 9282, 96 confers jurisdiction to this Court relative to 94 Mitsubishi Aiotors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau ofCustoms. G.R. No. 209830. June 17.2015. vi 95 An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals. June 16. 1954. 96 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court ofTa'\ Appeals (CTA). Elevating Its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging Its Membership. Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 1125. as Amended. Otherwise Known as the Law Creating the Court ofTax Appeals. and for Other Purposes. March 30. 2004.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x decisions and inactions of the CIR and states the manner of appealing the same, to wit: "SEC. 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period for action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;" [Emphasis supplied] Moreover, Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, provides the period for filing an appeal before the CTA, vzz.: "SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling, or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue...may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period nxed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. [Emphasis supplied] The above provisions are likewise provided under Section 11 0 3(a)(1)(2), Rule 4,97 ~~f:eeC:~i::,~,::~�-~:l~ u:~~D:~,~::a~c::~A.\I (a) Exclusive original or appellatt: jurisdiction to reYiew by appeal the following: (I) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments. refunds of internal revenue taxes. fees or other charges. penalties in relation thereto. or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue: (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments. refunds of internal revenue taxes. fees or other charges. penalties in relation thereto. or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other la\\�s administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. where the National Internal Rc\'enue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: 98 Sec. 3. Who may appeal: period to tile petition.- (a) A party adversely affected by a decision. ruling. or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal re'.:enue taxes. or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs. the Secretary of Finance. the Secretary of Trade and Industry. the Secretary of Agriculture. or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling. or e:-.:piration of the period

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 Page 13 of20 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Based on the above provisions, this Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions, rulings, or inactions of respondent. The appeal must be filed by the party adversely affected within thirty (30) days from receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action. Records reveal that petitioner filed the present Petition for Review due to the alleged inaction of respondent CIR on its Appeal/Request for Reconsideration of the FDDA dated October 3, 2017, which it received on October 12, 2017. The Petitionfor Review states:99 2.1. This case is a Petition for Review pursuant to Sec. 3(a)(2), Rule 4 of A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA on the inaction of respondent [CIR] on the Appeal/Request for Reconsideration of the [FDDA] issued by respondent BIR Regional Director against petitioner. 2.2 On November 10, 2017, petitioner seasonably filed an Appeal/Request for Reconsideration, pursuant to RMO No. 26- 2016, with the [CIR], the [FDDA] it received on October 12, 2017 .... 2.3 The 180 days period provided for under Sec. 228 of RA 8424, [RR] No. 12-99 and RMO 26-2016 has already lapsed on May 10, 2018 counted from November 10, 2017 without any resolution or decision on the Appeal/Request for Reconsideration .... 2.4. Petitioner has 30 days from the lapse of the 180-day period within which to file this petition in accordance with RA 8424 and A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA. Hence, this Petition for Review. Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides for the procedure and manner upon which a taxpayer may protest an assessment, including a remedy to seek redress of the inaction or decision on the disputed assessment, viz.: Section 228. Protesting of Assessment. - When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: .... Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within i thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected. the taxpayer must file a petition for review \Vithin the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes. 99 Pars. 2.1. to 2.3 .. Petition for Review. supra at note I.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 Page 14 of20 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 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. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (1801 days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied] Correspondingly, Revenue Regulations ("RR") No. 12- 1999, 100 as amended by RR No. 18-2013, 101 implements Section 228 and provides the taxpayer's options on disputed assessments, to wit: 3.1.4 Disputed Assessment. - The taxpayer or its authorized representative or tax agent may protest administratively against the aforesaid FLD/FAN within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof. The taxpayer protesting an assessment may file a written request for reconsideration or reinvestigation defined as follows: If the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner's duly authorized representative, the taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision; or (ii) elevate his protest through request for reconsideration to the Commissioner within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision. No request for reinvestigation shall be allowed in administrative appeal and only issues raised in the decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative shall be entertained by the Commissioner. If the protest is not acted upon by the Commissioner's � _/ \{\ duly authorized representative within one hundred eighty (180) days counted from the date of filing of the protest in case of a request reconsideration; or from date of submission by the taxpayer of the required documents within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the protest in case of a request for reinvestigation, the taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to the 100 Implementing the Provisions of the 1\ational Internal Revenue Code of 1997 Governing the Rules on Assessment of National Internal Revenue Ta'\es_ Civil Penalties and Interest and the Extra-Judicial Settlement of a Ta:\paycr's Criminal Violation of the Code Through Payment of a Suggested Compromise Penalty. September 6. 1999. 101 Amending Certain Sections of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99. November 28. 2013.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 Page 15 of20 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X CTA within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; or (ii) await the final decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative on the disputed assessment. If the protest or administrative appeal, as the case may be, is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner, the taxpayer may appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision. Otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. A motion for reconsideration of the Commissioner's denial of the protest or administrative appeal, as the case may be, shall not toll the thirty (30)-day period to appeal to the CTA. If the protest or administrative appeal is not acted upon by the Commissioner within one hundred eighty (180) days counted from the date of filing of the protest, the taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from after the expiration of the one hundred eighty (180)- day period; or (ii) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of a copy of such decision. It must be emphasized, however, that in case of inaction on protested assessment within the 180-day period, the option of the taxpayer to either: (1) file a petition for review with the CTA within 30 days after the expiration of the 180-day period; or (2) await the final decision of the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative on the disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the CTA within 30 days after the receipt of a copy of such decision, are mutually exclusive and the resort to one bars the application of the other. [Emphasis supplied} In determining the timeliness of an appeal from the inaction of the CIR, a plain reading of Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 3.1.4 ofRR No. 12-1999, as amended, reveals that there is only one (1) "180-day period" of inaction to speak of which shall be counted from the date of filing of the protest (if the protest is a request for reconsideration) or from the submission of the relevant supporting documents (if the protest is a request for reinvestigation) and not from the date when the decision of the CIR's duly authorized representative was appealed to the CIR.l02 " 102 Lan:v E. Segaya Les Engineering and Construction v. Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. CTA EB Case No. 2526. Dect:mber 13. 2022.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 Page 16 of20 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X There is nothing in Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and RR No. 12-1999,103 as amended, which provides for a separate 180-day period for the CIR's representative to act on the protest and another 180-day period [or the CIR to decide the appeal on the decision rendered by the CIR's duly authorized representative for the purpose of computing the 30- day period within which to appeal to the CTA.104 The Supreme Court's pronouncement in the case of Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. Area II v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (NEECO IJ)lOS is highly instructive, viz.: ... Notably, Section 3.1.4 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-13, which implements Section 228 of the Tax Code, provides for alternative courses of action to the taxpayer upon its receipt of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment issued by the authorized representative of respondent Commissioner on Internal Revenue (respondent), including the option of elevating the protest to the respondent himself through a request for reconsideration. However, nowhere in said provision does it provide that a fresh 180-day period is granted to the respondent to act on such administrative appeal. As aptly observed by the CTA EB, upholding petitioner's argument would run contrary to the clear language of Section 228 and would unduly expand the period provided by the law. Necessarily, taxpayers must exercise their rights in the manner and within the periods provided by statute and the pertinent regulations. [Emphasis supplied] Based on the foregoing legal and jurisprudential pronouncements, if the CIR's duly authorized representative denies the taxpayer's protest, a taxpayer is given two (2) alternative remedies, either to: first, appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the date of receipt of the representative's decision; or, second, elevate the protest through a request for reconsideration to the CIR, within the same 30-day period, otherwise referred to as an "administrative appeal," i.e., await the final decision of the CIR on the disputed assessments, and appeal such final decision to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of a copy of such decision. In the present case, RD Tanggor issued the FLD/FANs against petitioner on July 18, 2017.106 In response, petitione~ 103 Supra at note 100. 10~ !d. 005 G.R. No. 258101 (Notice). Apri119. 2022. 106 Supra at note 25.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X sent a Letter dated August 14, 20 17 to RD Tanggor, which the latter treated as a Protest against its deficiency Income and Value-Added Taxes assessment forTY 2014.107 To reiterate, under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and RR No. 12-99, as amended, the Regional Director, as the CIR's duly authorized representative, has 180 days counted from the date of filing of the protest to act on it. Thus, assuming petitioner's Protest Letter dated August 14, 2017 was received by the BIR on the same day, the 180-day period for the Regional Director to act or decide on it expired on February 10, 2018. On October 3, 2017, or long before the lapse of the 180- day period, RD Tanggor issued the FDDA, which petitioner received on October 12,2017. Undoubtedly, in this case, there was no inaction within 180 days but a denial of the protest by the CIR's duly authorized representative. Subsequently, on November 10, 20 17, petitioner filed an Appeal/Request for Reconsideration, otherwise known as administrative appeal, with the CIR.Ios It bears to emphasize that the administrative appeal was timely filed within 30 days from petitioner's receipt of the FDDA on October 12, 2017. Thus, petitioner is deemed to have chosen the second remedy, i.e., to await the CIR's final decision on the administrative appeal, and appeal the decision with the CTA within 30 days from receipt thereof. However, without waiting for the CIR's final decision, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on May 22, 20 18109 allegedly due to the inaction of the CIR on the said administrative appeal.11o It contends that the 180-day period, counted from the filing of the administrative appeal on November 10, 2017, lapsed on May 10, 2018, without any resolution or decision on the administrative appeal; thus, it had 30 days from May 10, 2018 to file this petition. 111 Under the circumstances, the Court finds that petitioner erroneously applied the 180-day period; consequently, the instant Petition for Review was prematurely filed. Evidently, 107 FDDA dated October 3. 2017. supra at note 27. v 108 Exhibit ��r-r. id.. pp. 33-45. 109 Supra at note 29. 110 Docket- Vol. I. pp. 10-29. 111 Pars.2.3.to 2.4.. Petition for Revie''"� supra at note 1.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9928 Bayugan Farmers Millers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Atty. Nasser A. Tanggor-OIC Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 17 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X there is no final decision reviewable before this Court as petitioner mistakenly reckoned the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA from May 10, 2018, or after the lapse of the 180-day period from the filing of the administrative appeal. As discussed above and guided by the Supreme Court's pronouncement in the NEECO II case, there is only one (1) "180-day period" of inaction to speak of, which shall be counted from the date of filing of the protest and not from the date of filing of administrative appeal. Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 3.1.4 ofRR No. 12-1999, do not provide that a fresh 180-day period is granted to the CIR to act on an administrative appeal." Given the foregoing, We rule that, without an appealable decision from the CIR, this Court could not validly obtain jurisdiction over the present Petition for Review. Petitioner's only recourse would be to await respondent's final decision on its administrative appeal and appeal the same before the CTA within 30 days from receipt thereof. It bears emphasis that jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy and is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. To reiterate, if the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. The court could not decide the case on the merits.tt2 Anent the Final Notice Before Seizure ("FNBS") dated August 20, 2018 issued byRD Furia, 11 3 the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Light Rail Transit Authority v. Bureau of Internal Revenuel 14 is instructive, viz.: Neither can the 30-day period for filing a petition for review be reckoned from petitioner's receipt of any of the w following issuances: the Preliminary Collection Letter, the Final Notice Before Seizure, the Warrant of Distraint and/ or 112 AT&T Communications Services Philippines. Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue. G.R. No. 185969. November 19. 2014. 113 Exhibit "R-19". BIR Records. pp. 408-409. 114 G.R. No. 231238. June 20. 2022.

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.