CTA Case No. 4850 (Resolution)

� RBPUBLIC 0!' THB PHILIPPINES COURT OP TAX APPBALS QUSZOII CITY SOLID CBHBIIT CORPORATION Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASK 110. 4850 JOSB OBG, in his capacity as the Coaaissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x RBS 0 LUT1 0 H On July 2, 1993, counsel for the respondent moved in open court for the dismissal of the instant petitiQn on the ground that it was prematurely filed. In moving for the dismissal of this instant petition, respondent only reiterated his prayer in his Answer on the ground thatt 4. Respondent's letter dated August 4, 1992 (Annex "C") requesting petitioner to pay within ten ( 10) days fro-. receipt thereof of the deficiency value-aalied-tax in the total amount of P3, 097,149.46 for the year 1988 does not constitute respondent's final decision on ~he petitioner's letter-protest dated February 10, 1992 appealable to this Honorable Court, hence, the petition is premature and confers no jurisdiction to this Honorable Court; (Special and Affirmative Defenses par. 4, CTA Records p. 18) In his Opposition To Dismissal of Petition Due To Its Alleged Prematurity filed on July 26, 1993,

� RESOLU'l'IOH - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4850 - 2- petitioner intained that respondent ' s letter dated August 4, 1992 (Annex C) constituted already a final decision on petitioner ' s letter-protest of February 10, 199 , because ccording to the eti tioner, i ts protest had been denied in whole when the c ol lection letter specifically stated: To void the ccu ulation of interest and surcharges I it is requested that you pay within ten (10) d ys fro receipt hereof the aforesaid t x liability/ies xxx. However, if pay ent had been de, please bring to us the xerox copies of the receipts of p yment xxx _fai}.ing _,_in tl!. .!- 1 ~~ - ~-h.._! L}?~ c<?_~s_!.raine_d tq___�ef~r ..Y9~.f_q.~ - - - - - - - - -to-�- the Collec-tion E-n- fo....r.c.ement D.. ivision for t-�h.e i.s..s._uan-ce �o-f---a--w� arr.a-nt -of ..-.d-�.i.��s- traint and l_evy _, ~E._..~l!for ~ ts _. c..o_ll~i~-~-.1 _ 'i; thout fu!~her not!~e. (Emphasis supplied by petitioner; CTA Records p. 33) We do not gree. We do not see anything in the above quoted letter which would clearly and unmist kably indicate the denial with finality by the espondent on disputed as ssments which is appealable to this Court s contemplated by Section 7 of Republ1c Act 1125. Even the phr se "failing in that 1 ( eaning failure to pay within ten ( 10) days), we shall be constr ined to refe your case to th Collection Enforcement Division for the issuance of the warrant of distraint and levy to enforce collection without furthe notice" cannot by any s retch of imagination be considered s " final" decision of the respondent.

" � RESOLU"riOB - C.~.A. CASE HO . 4850 - 3- In fact, even the actual__.l.~l!~...!:flCe of warrant of distrain and levy is, under certain circumstances, still cannot be considered as final decision of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs . Union Shipping Corp. 185 SCRA 547) The Court of Tax Appeals, being a court of special jurisdiction , can take cognizance only on such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction . (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Leonardo S. Villa, et al. , L- 23988 , January 2, 1968) . ACCORDINGLY, the motion to dismiss made in open court by the respondent .is hereby GRANT.ED. The Court cannot take cognizance of this case for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, September 10, 1993 Q .. x;:; Q .. GL...Jh.. ERNESTO D. ACOS"rA Presiding Judge ~I ,V/J, ' ). ~ GRUBA Associate Judge RAMON 0. DE Associate Judg /amf