CTA Case No. 5125 (Resolution)

\ REPUBLIC OF 11� PHILIPPIIES COURT OF TAX APPEALS lllEZON CITY ATLAS CEJIIENT CORPORATION,. C.T.A. CASE NO. 5125 Petitioner~, NOV 091995 - versus LIWAYWAY UINZONS-CHATD, in her capacity as the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REUENlE, Respondent. X- - - - - - RESOLUTION Respondent filed a Motion to Dis�iss on August 1, 1995 based on the foil owing ��easons: 1> the main cause of action in the petition has 2) the Honorable Court loses its jurisdiction over the above-entitled case due to the lifting of the warrant of distraint and/or levy. At t hi s point , it is appropriate to give a brief historical background of the case to clarify the issues involved. On September 7, 1993, petitioner received assess�ent notices for alleged deficiency business tax and inco�e tax for the taxable year 1987. Subsequent 1 y, petit i one�� filed a letter of p��otest with respondent on Octobe�� 7., ~

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5125 - 2- 1993. Respondent did not act on the protest but instead issued a letter advising petitioner to settle the Thereafter, on June 21, 1994, petitioner received a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy from respondent pro�pting said petitioner to elevate its cause to this Court through a Petition with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Injunction filed on June 29, 1994. Apparently, petitioner construed the issuance of a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy as equivalent to a decision of respondent on the protest, hence appealable to this Court. During the pendency of the trial, a letter dated 1994, was issued by Regional Director, Antonio I. Ortega, infor�ing the petitioner that the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy has been cancelled and withdrawn and that the protest filed earlier will finally be resolved. This supervening event pro�pted respondent to file a Motion to Dis�iss pri�arily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because it is her contention that the cancellation of the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy had the effect of divesting this Court of its jurisdiction as there can be no �ore action that can be interpreted as a decision on petitioner's protest. To bolster its claim, th~ respondent cited the decision of the Supreme Court in

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5125 - 3- case entitled Co� �issioner of Internal Revenue vs. Villa, 22 SCRA 3, where it was ruled that a �ere assess�ent from the BIR is not appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals. A careful consideration of the facts surrounding the case as well as the issues involved leads this Court to uphold respondent's contention. This Co"n~t acquit~ed jurisdiction pri�arily upon the issuance of a Warrant of Di stt~ai nt and/or Levy which is cons i det~ed to be a decision on the protest filed by the petitioner hence appealable to this Court. The rationale for considering as a final decision is that the act of issuing such warrant is tanta�ount to a denial on the of the respondent on petitioner's request for reconsideration embodied by collection of taxes by one of the �eans provided by law. lt follows therefor, that if the respondent who issued such warrant later on cancels and withdraws the sa�e then the i eat~ 1 eJ~ f i 1 ed by petit i onet~ unJ~eso 1 ved. In fact, respondent for�ally entertains the protest showing lack of finality of the case in the ad�inistrative level. This Court in such a situation has no other choice but to dis�iss this case because there is no decision of the respondent calling for review hence divesting us of jurisdiction to dispose this case on its

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5125 - 4- WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this case is het~eby DISMISSED without pt~ejudice to the petitionel~ seeking recourse to this Court in the event that its protest is eventually denied in whole or in part. 50 ORDERED. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA I Pr~e'S id i ng Judge GRUBA A'S 'SOC tate J�J.dge ~' ~.}�, RAMON 0. DE YE A'S'Sociate Jud