HELIX MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (formerly `HOLCIM MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION`) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

.- CTA Fonn No.8 (For DCC) lllll ll llll lll llllll llll llll llllll l lll l llllll llllllllll lllll 22-000439-0091 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10974 HELIX MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATUION (formerly "HOLCIM MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION"), Petitioner, NOTICE OF RESOLUTION -versus - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: O FFICE O F THE SOLIC ITOR GENERAL 134 Amorso1o Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. SHERYL LP.CACAYURAN ATTY. JARED MITCHELL V. ACUNA Bureau oflntemal Revenue - Revenue Region No.8B 2nd Floor, Legal Division, BIR Regional Office Building No. 313 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue Makati City MATA-PEREZ, TAMAYO & FRANCISCO ATTO RNEYS-AT-LAW Unit I002, One Corporate Plaza 845 A. Amaiz Avenue, Legazpi Village Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 11, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, March 13, 2026. Atty. Maria Jo:~han-Te Executive Clerk of Court III Page I of 1

I REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION HELIX MINING AND CTA CASE NO. 10974 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (formerly Members: "HOLCIM MINING AND DEVELOPMENT BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CORPORATION") , CUI-DAVID, JJ. Petitioner, - versus - Promulgated: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. MAR ll2026; /.'dDPH ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - - - - - ){ RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: On October 10, 2025, the Court promulgated a Decision, 1 the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises con s idered , th e instan t Pe tition for Review filed by petitioner Helix Min in g a nd Developmen t Corporation (formerly "Holcim Min ing and Developmen t Corpora tion ") is GRANTED. Accordingly, th e Forma l Letter of Dem a nd an d Fina l Assessment Not ice d a ted September 30 , 2 01 9, a re CANCELLED a nd SET ASIDE. The Fina l Decision on �. Disputed Assessm en t da ted August 1, 2022, assessing petition er for deficien cy Income Tax a n d Expanded Withholding Tax for taxable year 2016, is REVERSED a nd SET ASIDE. Docket- Vol. IV, pp. 33 17-3336.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10974 Helix Mining and Developmen t Corporation (formerly "Holcim Mining and Development Corporation") v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of6 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Furthermore, respondent, his representatives, agents, or other persons acting on his behalf are ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from enforcing the collection of the subject deficiency taxes against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Unconvinced, respondent filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on November 6, 2025, praying that the Court reconsider the assailed Decision, based on the following grounds/ arguments: A. The government cannot be estopped from collecting taxes by mistake, negligence, or omission of its agents; B. Petitioner was afforded due process due to it; and, C. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government; hence, their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need. In its Comment/ Opposition (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated November 6, 2025), filed on November 18, 2025, petitioner submits that respondent's Motion fo r Reconsideration sh ould be denied for failure to establish any reversible error in the Court's Decision. According to petitioner, while it is a well-settled rule that estoppel generally does not lie against the government, particularly in matters involving taxation, this principle should not be rigidly applied where its enforcement would result in injustice to the taxpayer. Petitioner alleges that a strict application of the general rule would work an injustice in its case, as it would violate its right to du e process. Petitioner also rejects respondent's assertion that it was afforded due process since it was able to file protests against the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and the Final Assessment Notice (FAN). Citing the Suprem e Court's ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. 2 (Avon case), petitioner asserts that the G.R. Nos. 20 1398 et a/., October 3, 20 18 [Per 1. Leonen, Third Division].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10974 Helix Min ing and Developmen t Corpor ation (formerly "Holcim Mining and Development Corporation") v. Commis sioner of Internal Reven ue Page 3 of6 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Court committed no error in holding that respondent never considered the arguments or submissions made by petitioner, as shown in the verbatim reiteration of the findings in the PAN and the FAN. Finally, petitioner counters that the lifeblood doctrine cannot override its constitutional right to due process. According to petitioner, while the lifeblood doctrine gives the State the right to collect taxes most expeditiously, it is not a license to disregard the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of his/her property without due process of law. The rule is that taxes must be collected reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration must fail. First, the rule against estoppel does not apply. Although the government cannot be estopped by the negligence or omission of its agents, the obligatory provision on protesting a tax assessment cannot be rendered nugatory by a mere act of respondent or his duly authorized representatives. Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997 pertinently provides: SEC. 228 . Protesting of Assessment. - When th e C ommiss ion e r or his duly a uthorized rep resen tative finds th a t proper taxes should be assessed, h e sh all first n otify the taxpayer of h is findings: .. . The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void." (Emphasis supplied) Under Section 228 , it is explicitly required that the taxpayer be informed in writing of the law and of the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. 3 The requirement that the taxpayer must be informed of the factual and legal bases of the assessment is mandatory. It cannot be presumed. As a requirement of due process, this rule allows the taxpayer to make an effective Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc., G. R. Nos. 20 1398 el at. October 3, 20 18 [Per J. Leonen, Third Div ision].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10974 Helix Mining and Development Corporation (formerly "Holcim Mining and Development Corporation") v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x protest. 4 To be sure, the requirement set by law to state in writing the factual and legal bases for the assessment is not a hollow exhortation. The law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement.s In the Avon case) the Supreme Court eloquently discussed the utmost importance of observing due process 1n issuing deficiency tax assessments, to wit: Tax assessments issued in violation of the due process rights of a taxpayer are null and void. While the government has an interest in the swift collection of taxes, the Bureau of Internal Revenue and its officers and agents cannot be overreaching in their efforts, but must perform their duties in accordance with law, with their own rules of procedure, and always with regard to the basic tenets of due process. The 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, a lso known as the Tax Code, and revenue regulations a llow a taxpayer to file a reply or otherwise to submit comments or arguments with supporting documents at each s tage in the assessment process. Due process requires the Bureau of Internal Revenue to consider the defenses and evidence submitted by the taxpayer and to render a decision based on these submissions. Failure to adhere to these requirements constitutes a denial of due process and taints the administrative proceedings with invalidity. (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, the records reveal that, in issuing the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) /FAN, the BIR never addressed or considered the arguments raised by petitioner in its Reply to the PAN. This is clear when respondent issued the FLD/FAN, which was a complete replica of the PAN, without even stating or explaining the demerits of petitioner's contentions. As part of due process, the BIR must state the reason/ s for rejecting petitioner's explanations, and must give the particular facts upon which its conclusions are based, and those facts must appear on record. Respondent has obviously not observed such a requirement in the issuance of the subject FLD /FAN. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Spouses Magaan. G.R. No. 232663. May 3. 2021 [Per J. Leonen, T hird Di vis ion]. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Unioil Corporation, G.R. No. 204405, August 4, 2021 [Per J. Hernando, Second Division].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10974 Helix Mining and Development Corpor ation (formerly "Holcim Mining and Development Corporation") v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 5 of6 x----- ------ ---------------- ---------- ----- ------- -- -------------------- -------- -----x petitioner's right to due process, as recognized under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, was violated by respondent. Tax laws are civil in nature. 6 Under our Civil Code, acts executed against the mandatory provisions of law are void, except when the law itself authorizes the validity of those acts.7 Failure to comply with Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, not only renders the assessment void, but also finds no validation in any provision in the Tax Code. The Court cannot condone errant or enterprising tax officials, as they are expected to be vigilant and law-abiding. Second, contrary to respondent's assertion, there was a violation of due process when he issued the FLD /FAN which was a complete replica of the PAN, without even stating or explaining the demerits of petitioner's contentions. Lastly, on respondent's invocation of the lifeblood doctrine, suffice it to say that while taxes are the lifeblood of the government, their assessment and collection <<should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself."8 To proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal principle in administrative investigations: that taxpayers should be able to present their case and adduce supporting evidence. In the instant case, petitioner was not informed in writing of the facts and law on which the assessment was made. Thus, the assessment cannot stand. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~'PMii- LANEE S. CUI-D'AVID Associate Justice 6 Aban, Law ofBasic Taxation in the Philippines (200 1), p. 143. Art. 5 of the Civil Code. Marcos If v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 120880, June 5, 1997 [Per J. Torres Jr., Second Division].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10974 Helix Mining and Development Corporation (formerly "Holcim Mining and Development Corporation") v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-- -------------- ------------ ------ ----- ---- -----------------------------------------x !CONCUR: ociate Justice