CTA Case No. 953 (Resolution)

., .. .. t:Jt \.. J..,... , O.F '1 � A1'l-'EAl ~.u..a C HMELO S. TOLE Tli 0 , ; represented by Crispu1o Tolentino , Petitioner1 - versus - C. T. A. C vE 1'-lOo 953 THE CO iMISSIONEH." OF INTB.H.N/ L l1.EV UE , 1 espondent . X X -- � -~--~~----~ rl E S 0 L U T I 0 N This is in c onnection with the ~Motion to Dis - miss�1 filed by the respondent on Oc tober 19 i l960o Petitioner was employed with the Iv1orrison- Knudsen fghanistan , Inc. at Kandahar, fghanistan during the period from July , 1955 to Dec ember , 1956. For the years 1955 and 1956 , the I oyal Afghan Government c ol- lec ted from him the sums of $24 . 72 and $105 . 63 , res - pec tively , as inc ome ta xes (P o 30, BI re ~) . Upon filing his inc ome tax returns on ugust 1 , 1957 for the years 1955 and 1956, respondent issued to peti- tioner 1 sse s sment Notices Nos . 43 - 6865- 57- 55 dated September 24 , 1957 for the s um of 1135 . 00 and 43- l - 414 89 - 57- 56 dated October 4~ 1957 for the sum of i-156. 00, respectively. Petitioner promptly paid the asses sments on ~eptember 24 , 1957 under Offic ial Re - c e i pt No . 0535603 and on October 15 1 1957 under Of - ficial Rec eipt No. 0536596 . On Dec ember 11 , 1957, petitioner requested for the revision of .the asse s sments and the refund of the

� R SOLUTION - C . T. A. CASE NO o 953 2- . amounts paid thereunder . This request was denied by the respondent on July 18 , 1958o On ugu st 18, 1960, petitioner sought a reconsideration of re spondent t s denial of July 8-� 1960. This request for re c onsi- deration was denie~ by respondent on August 24 , 1960. And , on September 29 ~ 1960, petitioner filed hi s peti- tion for review before this Court. .... On October 19 1 1960 , respondent moved to dismiss the petition for review on the ground that 11 the 'right of pe~itioner to re c over the amounts alleged to have been erroneously paid as income taxes has already pres - cribed , v and that , therefore , this Court has no juris- diction over the pre sent case . Judicial suits or proceedings for the recovery of taxe s alleged to have been erroneously or illegally asse ssed and c ollected should c omply with the proce ~ dural requirements provided in both Section 306 of the National Internal Revenue Code and Sections 7 and 11 of l epublic Act I-.J o. ll25o In ." other words 1 the judl,cial action should be in~tituted both within two years from the date of payment 'of the tax and within 30 days from receipt of the dec is ion of the Commissioner denying the claim for refund . Both requirements are jurisdic- tional and non-compliance therewith would bar the ap- peal and deprive this Court of its jurisdiction to . entertain the sameo (See aracale Gumaus ~ining Coo Vo Blaquera) C.I.A. Case o. 211 ~ Aug . 22, 1956; Larida v. Collector of Internal Revenue , C. To � Case No . 548 ,

d.ES LUTIOi' .... C.T.. � SE NO . 953 - 3- Sept . 29 , 1959; College of Oral and Dental urgery Vo Court of Ta x ppeal s, G. a. No o L- 10446 1 Jan . 28 , 1958; ! epublic v. Del osarf.o , G. I � l o. L- 10460, Maro 11 , 1959; Gibbs Vo Collector of Internal Re � venue 1 G. � � O o L- 13453, Feb . 29 , 1960; Panga sin an Transportation Co . Vo Blaqu~ra ~ G. � ~o Q L- 131 l i pri l 29 , l960o} In the c ase at bar, the petition for review was filed only on September 29 1 1960 , or after a - most three years from the payment of the tax on Se pt - ember 24 , 1957 and October 15 , 1957. Likewise , more than two year �s have already elap s~ed from the � date petitioner received res pondent is letter- decision dated July 18 , 1958 denying his re que st for re fund to t he date this c a s e was instituted in this Courto ~learly , t herefore, t he st atutory jurisdictional re - quirements above referred to have not been meto etitioner, however, addres s ed his appea .L to this Court ' s sense of equityo To deny the in stant . motion to dismiss and thereoy allow petitioner to prosecute his action to recover would be a suover- s ion of the provision s of Section 306 of the Ta x Code and ciec tion 11 of epuolic'f c t 1 Oo .Ll25 . It i s s ettl~theadt �equity c annot be appl ied to subvert estaolis d rule s of law. 1 VI vJ OF TiiC. F BEGUL~G 1 the �1Petition for de - viewh filed in the above-entitled c a s e on Se ptember

� ~CJLUTI 1 - T C. {.; 0 ..>L N 0 4 r r 0$ 0 -4- 29 1 136 is he�E.7 diSt11iss a , without p o1our c e,Hent as to c osts . / ..an5~la , uecenuer 1~ 1 196 . I c onc u� in the result .