CTA Case No. 2127 (Resolution)

, -...... ." I ~EPU~LIC OF THE PHILIPPINF..JJ COURT OF TAX APPE.ALiil QUEZON CITY SALVADOR vi. CORPUS , Petitioner , - versus - C. T. A. CASE Noo 2127 COi�fiv"ISSIOrER OF I NTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . X- - - - - - - - -X RE S 0 L UT I 0 N Respondent sought the dismissal of the petition for review filed by petitioner on May 20 , 1970 because it failed to state a cause of action and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Petitioner was engaged in business in Zamboanga City as exclusive dealer or seller of the products of International Harvester Co . of Philippines , now International Harvester Macleod , Inco , I HM for short . He purchased tractors , trucks , heavy equipment , and parts or accessories thereof from the . I HM and sold to his customers under the terms of the Dealer Sales Agreement with the I HM. Sometime in November 1 962 , respondent demanded upon petitioner payment of the commercial broker ' s fixed and percentage taxes amounting to 12 , 8 Ool8 covering the period from 1956 to 1959, inclusive . The demand letter was protested and contested by peti- tioner , but no decision has as yet . been rendered by respondent o In the meantime , the resolution of the 'protest was held in abeyance by respondent pending the deci- sion of this Court on CTA Case No . 1016 entitled

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE No . 2127 2 ucirilo D. Constantino vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue" involving the same controversial issue . The said case was decided by this Court in favor of peti- tioner on March 14, 1966 but it was appealed by re- spondent to the Supreme Court . The decision of the lower court was reversed by the Supreme Co urt on February 27 , ~97 0 . On Iv ay 20 , 1970 , petitioner appealed the present case to this Court alleging t hat , despite the fact that no final dec i sion has been rendered by the respondent on petitioner's p~otest and/or request for recons i der- ation , the Upeti tion is being filed in view of. i nfor - mation received fro m the Bureau of Internal Revenue that a \'Tarrant of Distraint and Levy .may be served up- on petitionern (pe 4, Pe t. for Rev ., CTA reco)o On August 10 , 1 970 , res pondent filed his motion to dismiss . On September 18 , 1970 , petitioner opposed the said mot ion and claimed that in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case , the dismissal thereof is not pro per. Petitioner argues t hat , when the Supreme Court decided the Constantino case i n favor of respond- ent on Febr uary 27 , 1970 , he is deemed to have decided the dis puted assessment simultaneously with the Supreme Court , conformably with the previous understanding between the parties ~ This Court has jurisdiction to review the . appeal made by taxpayers from decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on dis puted revenue tax assessment.

S LUTIO CTA CASE lo . 2127 3 However , the petition for review itself admits that no final decision has been rendered by respondent on petitioner ' s protest and/or request for reconsideration. Consequently, the filing of the present petition for . review is premature and , therefore , this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the aase (Commis- sioner of Internal evenue v . Villa , et al ., G. R. o. L-23988 , Jan . 2, 1968; Candyman Inc . v. Commissioner of Int . ev. , CTA ase o . 1872 ,- Jan . 20 , 1970) . \v.HEREFORE , finding respondent ' s motion to dis iss well taken, the petition for review has to be , as it is hereby , dismissed. SO ORDERED . uezon ity , January 27 , 1971. t ~ ~- � L~~ ~ . ALVARE Associate Judge vJE corcuR: fL_ ~~ - RM I L . AV CE -A Associate Judge �