CEBU MITSUMI, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION CEBU MITSUMI, INC., C.T.A. Case No. 8531 Petitioner, -versus- Members: Castaneda, Jr., Chairperson Casanova, and Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: ~ REVENUE, AUG 0 5 2015 tl. : \}'"if. prr\ Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ){ RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,J.: For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration1, filed through registered mail on June 8, 20 15, and received by th is Court on June 11, 2015. Petitioner filed its Comment/ Opp osition2 on July 2, 2015 . Subject of the m otion for reconsideration is this Court's Decision, dated May 21, 2015, which disposed of the case, as follows: "In the cases of Sony, De la Salle University, University of Santo Tomas Hospital, letters of authority were issued prior to the assessment which were subsequently declared void. In the instant case, no letter of authority was issued prior to the investigation and assessment. With more reason, the assessment in the instant case is void having been issued without an LOA. XXX v WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review IS GRANTED. Accordingly, 1 Docket, pp. 1206-1211 . 2 Docket, pp. 1216-1221.

RESOLUTON CfA CASE No. 8531 Assessment Notice No. 123-IT-20-2009-2012-05-27 is hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN."3 Respondent now argues that petitioner is already barred by laches in assailing the validity of the assessment considering petitioner's failure to raise the issue of lack of letter of authority despite several opportunities to do so. Petitioner counter-argues that an assessment issued without a Letter of Authority is absolutely null and void, and that estoppel by laches cannot make legally valid a void assessment. In the instant case, the Court found that no Letter of Authority was issued.4 In the absence of such Letter of Authority, any assessment issued is a nullity. It has been consistently held that a void assessment bears no valid fruit. 5 This Court cannot countenance respondent's argument that the doctrine of estoppel applies and that petitioner has already lost the opportunity to question the absence of the Letter of Authority. Respondent's arguments would have the effect of giving validity to the questioned assessment, which are null and void. This result is not the intent of the doctrine of estoppel. Estoppel cannot validate an act that contravenes law or is against public policy. Thus, the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in the instant case as the questioned assessments are null and void. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~~~- CONCURS: AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice ~~~c.~~~9. Jff? JfiANITO C. CASTANEffA; JR. CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Associate Justice 3 Docket, pp. 1204-1205. 4 Decision, p. 6; docket, p. 1203. 5 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Azucena T. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 159694 & 163581, January 27,2006.