PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. POLYSTAR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, BETTY SISON HUANG (2308 Taft Avenue, Pasay City) HONG ZHENG, (F070 Otis 888 Residences Faz M. Guanzon St., Paco Manila) and MARIA FE BANGAAN RAYALA (1058-F. Banawe St., corner Mauban, Brgy. Manresa, Quezon City)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-1140 Plaintiff, (NPS NO: XV-05-INV-23K-3512) PHILIPPINES, .For: Violation of Section 255 of the -versus- National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. POLYSTAR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION 4rh .Floor Low Members: Rise Pacific Star, Sen. Gil Puyat RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chaitperson, Avenue, ~1akati City MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES,JJ_. BETTY SISON HUANG (2308 Taft Avenue, Pasay City), Promulgated: HONG ZHENG (F070 Otis 888 Residences Fa~: M. Guan:wn St., Paco Manila), and MARIA FE BANGAAN RAYALA (1058-.F. Banawe St., corner Mauban, Barangay Manresa, Quezon City), RESOLUTION In a Resolution dated February 5, 2025, the Court dismissed the case because (a) Plaintiff failed to comply with the order of the Court for the third time despite fair warning; and, (b) Prescription of the alleged crime had already set in, under Section 281 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC). Plaintiff now asks for a reconsideration of the dismissal stating that the Court erred in concluding that the taxpayer received the Final Assessment Notice (.FAN) on February 7, 2018. 1 1 In the assailed Resolution, the Court found that, since the taxpayer received the FAN on February 7, 2018, it had thirty (30) days to lodge a protest. The assessment became final when the taxpayer failed to protest on the last day, March 9, 2018 (Friday). Consequently, the Court determined that plaintiff should have filed the Information in Court not later than March 12, 2023. However, the

RESOLUTION CfA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1140 The Motion for Reconsideration states that instead of February 7, 2018, the taxpayer actually received the F1\N on August 8, 2018. Plaintiff raises a factual issue which should readily be resolved by a review of the records. However, plaintiff tests the Court's reliance of these records by contradicting its own representation of facts found in Iiformation and the supporting documents. Specifically, in the Joint Complaint-Affidavit, the revenue officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue declared under oath that the FAN was served on February 7, 2018:2 5. Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) with Details of Discrepancies dated October 03, 2017 was issued to Respondent Polystar. Said PAN was personally received by taxpayer's representative, I .aibin Liu on October 10, 2017. Certified Tme Copies of the P_AN, Details of Discrepancies October 03, 2017 and Written Report on Personal Service or Substiruted Service (\X'RPSSS) dated October 10, 2017 are attached hereto as Annexes "B", "B-1" and "B-2" and are made integral parts hereof. 6. Respondent Polystar failed to refute the PAN. Thus, on November 06, 2017, Formal Assessment Notice (FAN) with Details of Discrepancies together with the corresponding assessment notices were issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997 and subsection 3.1.2 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99. Said FAN was served by substituted service on based on Written Report on Personal Service or Substituted Service (WRPSSS) dated February 7, 2018. However, the FAN's receipt was later acknowledged by Respondent Polystar. Certified Tme Copies of the FAN, Details of Discrepancies, Assessment Notices No. ELA34446-14-17-1346 (IT, VT, WE,) and WRPSSS dated Febmary 07, 2018 are attached hereto as Annexes "C", "C-1", "C-2", "C-3", "C-4" and "C-5", respectively, and made integral parts hereof. 7. Thereafter, the assessment issued to Respondent Polystar became final, executory, unappealable and demandable for failure of the subject taxpayer to file protest within the thirty (30)-day period from receipt ofFAN as provided for in Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997. 8. On july 27,2018, a Memorandum of Assignment (MOA) #2018- 07-27-0305-DA was issued relative to the preparation of the Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) and Final Notice Before Seizure (FNBS) to be issued to Respondent Polystar for taxable yea: 2014. Thereafter, PCL dated July 30, 2018 and FNBS dated August 13, 2018 were issued against Respondent Polystar. Both PCL and FNBS were registered mailed and were not returned to sender. Information was filed only on April 8, 2024, which is past the five-year period of limitation in Section 281. 2 Docket, pp. 25-26.

RESOLUTION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1140 Certified True Copies of the said MOA#2018-07-27-0305-DA dated July 27,2018, PCL dated July 30,2018 and FNBS dated August 13, 2018 are attached hereto as Annexes "D", "D-1" and "D-2", respectively, and made integral parts hereof." (Underscan�~~ supplic:-1) As can be seen above, no less than the revenue officers themselves declared that the "assessment issued to Respondent Polystar became final, executory, unappealable and demandable" after the service on February 7, 2018. Thus, as early as July 27, 2018, a Memorandum oj_AJSignment was issued for the preparation of the Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) and Final Notice Before Seizure (FNBS). If the taxpayer actually received the FAN only on 1\ugust 8, 2018, the issuance of PCL and FNBS would have been premature and without basis. WHEREFORE, premised considered, plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. A.-,, ~ -1 '---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice FERRE~S ~ }/. ~- /'\ ,- COR@lN G.. _AssoCiate Justlcc ,