ALLIED METALS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION ALLIED METALS, INC., CTA CASE NO. 10711 Petitioner, -versus- Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES,]]. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL, Promulgated: Respondent. X--------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J. THE CASE The Petition for Review prays that the instant petition of Allied Metals, Inc. be granted, and the subject Final Decision on Disputed Assessments (FDDA), together with d1e pertinent alleged tax deficiency assessments, be cancelled and declared void.1 THE PARTIES Petitioner Allied Metals, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly registered under the laws of the Philippines with principal place of business located at No. 2000 Gov. F Halili Highway, Muzon, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. It is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under Registration 26448 dated December 15, 2014. 2 It is primarily established to engage in the manufacture, processing and production of metal products, wares, and articles of whatever kind and nature, ~ 1 Statement of the Case, Pre-Trial Order dated October 3, 2022, Docket- Vol. I, p. 370. 2 Par. 2, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, joint Stipulation o{Fad.r and !J.rue.r QSFI), Docket- Vol. I, p. 360.

DECISION CTi\ C\SE NO. 10711 such as but not limited to stainless steel kitchen equipment, aluminum louvers, structural steel frames, etc. 3 On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue who holds office at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City.4 THE FACTS OF THE CASE On December 2, 2016, petitioner received Letter ofAuthori!J (LOA) No. 25B-2016-00000240 dated November 24, 2016, authorizing Revenue Officer (RO) Jay Dee Castro and Group Supervisor Benjamin Almia of Revenue District No. 25B, Sta Maria, Bulacan, to conduct an examination of its books of accounts and other accounting records for the calendar year (CY) 2015.5 Thereafter, petitioner received on November 7, 2018, Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) No. 9359 dated October 29, 2018, with Details of Discrepancies and supporting schedules from the BIR.6 On January 10,2019, petitioner received Assessment Notice No. 37789 with Formal Letter of Demand (FLD /FAN) dated December 28, 2018, with Details of Discrepancies, reiterating the same findings in the PAN dated October 29, 2018, with additional penalties for interest. 7 Petitioner filed its protest by way of Requestfor Reinvestigation dated January 18,2019 against the FLD/FAN on February 6, 2019.8 Subsequently, on April23, 2021, the assailed FDDA dated March 15,2021 with deficiency assessments in the amount of P87,645,896.28, inclusive of penalties and interests, was received by petitioner.9 202? Petitioner then filed a Reqztestfor Rec-onsideration dated May 5, 2021 of the FDDA addressed to respondent on l\!Iay 24, 3 Par. 3, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. I, p. 360. 4 Par. 1, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. I, p. 360. 5 Par. 4, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. I, p, 360; Exhibits "P-2" and "R-1 ", BIR Records, p. 3. 6 Par. 5, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. I, p, 361; Exhibits "P-4" and "R-6", BIR Records, pp. 488 to 492. 7 Par. 6, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- \ 7 ol. I, p, 361; Exhibits "P-5" to "P-5-1" and "R-8" to "R-12", pp. 500 to 509. H Par. 7, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. I, p, 361; Exhibit "P-6" (as per Petitioner's Formal O.fjer ofE/Jldem"lijor t/1e Petitioner 117ith Motion to Mark the USB Aavmpm!ying the !CPA Report, Docket- \ 7ol. II, p. 473), BIR Records, pp. 1285 to 1290. 0 Par. 8, Summary of Stipulation of Facts,JSFI, Docket- Vol. I, p, 361; Exhibit "R-14", BIR Records, pp. 1358 to 1361. 111 Exhibit "P-8" (as per Petitioner's Formal Ojfer ~/Evidmcefor the Petitioner With lvfotion to iVfark the USB Aaompar!ying the ICPA Repo11, Docket- Vol. II, p. 474), Docket- \ 7 ol. I, pp. 199 to 216; Refer also to Q&_-\ 20, Exhibit "P-16", Docket- Vol. I, p. 321.

Page 3 o�14 DECISION CT\ C\SE NO. 10711 Petitioner filed the present Petitionfor Review on December 20, 2021. 11 Within the extended period,12 respondent filed his Answer on J'viay 24, 2022,13 arguing that: (i) the present Petition for Review, being anchored on the inaction of respondent on the protest flled by petitioner, is filed out of time and, thus, the Court cannot anymore exercise jurisdiction over petitioner's Petition for Review; and (ii) that the BIR enjoys the presumption of regularity, and that it is the taxpayer and not the BIR who has the duty of proving otherwise, pursuant to the case of Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Tuason and Court ofTax Appeals. 14 On June 3, 2022, respondent transmitted the BIR Records of the case consisting of 2898 pages.15 The Pre-Trial Conference was set and held on August 23, 2022. 16 Prior thereto, Respondent's Pre-Trial Briefwas filed on August 16, 2022,17 while the Pre- Trial Brieffor the Petitioner was submitted on August 18, 2022. 18 On September 16, 2022, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation r.fFactJ� and Issues,19 which was admitted and approved by the Court in its Resolution dated September 22, 2022,20 thereby deeming the termination of the Pre-Trial. Subsequently, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order dated October 3, 2022. 21 Trial then ensued, with both parties presenting and offering their respective testimonial and documentary evidence. Petitioner offered the testimonies of the following individuals, namely: (1) Ms. Socorro P. Valenzuela,22 Accounting Supervisor; and (2) Ms. Majelia M. Azogue Ubaldo,23 the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA).24 t II Docket- '\rol. I, pp. 6 to 26. 12 lvfotion(or Ev:ten.rion a/Time to 1-'!/e An.r;JJer dated .\pril 22, 2022, Docket-\'ol. I, pp. 221 to 223; Resolution dated "\pril 28, 2022, Docket-\'ol. I, p. 225. n Docket- '\'ol. I, pp. 226 to 237. I.J G.R. No. 85749, 1\Iay 15, 1989. 15 Ex-Parte JVfanife.rtatiofl & Comp!iante dated June 3, 2022, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 300 to 301. 1" Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated June 1, 2022, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 33 7 to 338; 1Iinutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, .\ugust 23,2022, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 331, and 333 to 335, respectively. 17 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 303 to 307. IR Docket- Vol. I, pp. 308 to 312. 1 ~ Docket- Vol. I, pp. 360 to 366. zo Docket- Vol. I, p. 368. 21 Docket- '\'ol. I, pp. 370 to 377. 22 Exhibit "P-16", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 317 to 326; 1Iinutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 13,2022, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 386, and 388 to 389, respectively. 2.l Exhibit "P-9", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 430 to 459; 1Iinutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 23, 2023, Docket- Vol. II, pp. 464, and 467 to 468, respectively. 2-1 Oat/J ~l Commi.r.rion dated October 13, 2022, Docket- Vol. I, p. 387; 1Iinutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 13, 2022, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 386, and 388 to 389, respectively.

Page 4 of14 DECISION CT\ C\SE NO. 10711 The Reportofthe ICPA was flied on December 12,2022.25 On March 10, 2023, the Formal Offer ifEvidencefor the Petitioner With Motion to Mark the USB Accompanying the !CPA Report was flied. 26 Respondent, however, failed to file his comment theretoY In the Resolution dated March 31, 2023,28 the Court: (1) noted the said Formal Offer ifEvidence; (2) granted the Motion to Mark the USB Accompat!Jing the ICPA Report, and (3) set the Commissioner's Hearing on April 13, 2023. Thereafter, respondent filed a Manifestation with },!lotion to Indude Additional Witness) 29 with attachedjuditiaiAjfidavit if]qy Dee Castro,30 among others, on May 9, 2023. In the Resolution dated July 17, 2023,31 the Court ordered petitioner to submit, within ten (1 0) days from notice, a USB drive functioning, uncorrupted copies of the exhibits and marked exhibits mentioned in paragraphs a and b, respectively, of the said Resolution. Petitioner flied its compliance (via the letter dated July 25, 2023) on July 26, 2023,32 and the same was noted by the Court in its Minute Resolution dated July 27, 2023.33 Subsequently, petitioner filed its Compliance Wit!J Motion for Re-numbering if Markings in the Orig[i)nai!J Marked Exhibits on July 31, 2023.34 In the Resolution dated October 26,2023,35 the Court: (1) noted petitioner's Compliance; (2) granted the integrated Motion; (3) admitted all of petitioner's offered exhibits; and (4) set a Commissioner's Hearing for the re-marking of the exhibits identified in petitioner's Motion. For his part, respondent presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: (1) RO Karen Marie Maniquiz;36 (2) RO Bernard Joseph Banayad;37 r and (3) RO Jay Dee Castro.38 25 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 393 to 424. 26 Docket- VoL II, pp. 470 to 490. 27 Records \'erification dated l\Iay 10, 2023 issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court, Docket- \'ol. II, p. 530. 28 Docket- Vol. II, p. 495. 29 Docket- \'oL II, pp. 499 to 502. 311 Exhibit "R-18", Docket- VoL II, pp. 515 to 524. �31 Docket- VoL II, pp. 532 to 533. 32 "\s per Transmittal dated July 25, 2023, Docket- VoL II, pp. 534 to 535. "Docket- VoL II, p. 539. �3~ Docket- Vol. II, pp. 540 to 545. 35 Docket- VoL II, pp. 547 to 548. 3r' Exhibit "R-19", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 248 to 252; and Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 13,2024, Docket- VoL II, pp. 555 to 556. 37 Exhibit "R-20", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 253 to 257; and .1\Iinutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, "\pril 2, 2024, Docket- \'ol. II, pp. 560 to 562. 3R Exhibit "R-18", Docket-\'ol. II, pp. 515 to 524; and .1\Iinutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 13, 2024, Docket- VoL II, pp. 555 to 556.

Page 5 of14 DECISION CT\ CASE NO. 10711 On April 19, 2024, respondent filed his Formal Offer if Evidence (FOE).39 However, no comment was filed thereon by petitioner.40 Thus, in the Minute Resolution dated May 14, 2024,41 the Court considered submitted for resolution respondent's FOE. Claiming, however, that its counsel did not receive the said FOE, petitioner flied a Motion for Reconsideration if the Minute Resolution dated Mqy 14, 2024 on May 16, 2024,42 praying for the reconsideration of the said Minute Resolution, and for the Court to allow petitioner to file its comment on the said FOE within a period of ten (1 0) days from May 16, 2024. In the Resolution dated June 7, 2024,43 the Court: (1) granted petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration; (2) reversed and set aside the Minute Resolution dated May 14, 2024; (3) ordered respondent to: (a) serve a copy of his FOE to petitioner within five (5) days from notice; (b) ensure that the copy is actually received by petitioner; and (c) submit proof of receipt of the FOE once petitioner receives the same; (4) ordered petitioner to file its comment to respondent's FOE within ten (10) days from either the receipt of the FOE or from gaining access to a copy of the FOE via other means, whichever comes first; and (5) deferred the resolution of the said FOE until after petitioner has filed its comment to the same or the lapse of the period granted for it to do so. Respondent submitted his compliance thereon on June 27, 2024.44 The same was noted by the Court in its Minute Resolution dated July 2, 2024.45 On July 2, 2024, petitioner flied its Comment [On the Respondenf'J Formal Offer ifEvidence].46 In the Resolution dated September 18, 2024,47 the Court admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits. The Memorandttmfor the Petitioner was filed on October 28, 2024,48 while the Memorandum (For the Respondent) was submitted on November 8, 2024.49 The case was considered submitted for decision on November 26, 2024. 50 THE STIPULATED ISSUES The parties stipulated the following issues for resolution of this Court, to wit: "A. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the case. / 19 Docket - Vol. II, pp. 563 to 571. 40 Records \'erification dated May 9, 2024 issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court, Docket-\'ol. II, p. 612. 41 Docket- Vol. II, p. 613. 42 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 614 to 616. 43 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 619 to 620. 44 Respondent's Manije.rtation, Docket- Vol. II, pp. 621 to 624. 45 Docket- Vol. II, p. 626. 4" Docket- Vol. II, pp. 627 to 632. 47 Docket- \'ol. II, pp. 635 to 636. 4X Docket- Vol. II, pp. 642 to 662. 49 Docket- \'ol. II, pp. 664 to 674. 50 J\finute Resolution dated November 26, 2024, Docket- \Tol. II, p. 675.

Page 6 of14 DECISION CT\ C\SE NO. 10711 B. Whether or not the Petitioner is liable for the alleged deficiency taxes amounting to Php 87,645,896.28, inclusive of interest and penalties for taxable year 2015."51 THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES Petitioner argues that this Court has jurisdiction as it filed the present Petition for Review within thirty (30) days upon the lapse of one hundred eighty (180) days for respondent to act on its Reqt~est for Reconsideration of the FDDA, issued by a Regional Director; that petitioner is not liable for the alleged deficiency taxes amounting to P87,645,896.28, inclusive of interests and penalties, for taxable year 2015; and that the RO who conducted the audit lacks authority, hence, rendering the audit and the results invalid. Respondent contends that the filing of the instant Petition for Review was ftled out of time and, thus, this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, in relation to Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, and as implemented by Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 18-2013, pertaining to due process requirement in tax assessments; the assessment is valid because the ROs designated in the issued LOAs were the ones who conducted the record examination of petitioner; and respondent's assessment notices on income tax, expanded withholding tax, documentary stamp tax, and improperly accumulated earnings tax, are valid as the same were issued in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations, and there exist factual and legal bases therefor. THE RULING OF THE COURT The present Petition for Review must be dismissed. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.52 Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997 reads as folio~ I 31 Issues, JSFI, Docket- Vol. I, p. 362. 32 J'viitJttbiJbi i'vfoton PbilippineJ Cotporation tJJ. Bttreatt o/CmlomJ, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015.

Page 7 of14 DECISION CT\ CASE NO. 10711 "Section 228. Protesting if Assessment. - When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: xxx XXX XXX XXX The taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)- day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable." (Emphases added) Implementing the above-quoted Section 228, Section 3 ofRR No. 12-99,53 as amended by RR No. 18-2013,54 and as renumbered by RR No. 7-2018,55 provides, in part, as follow(- 50 SUBJECT: Implementing the Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 Governing the Rules on "\ssessment of National Internal Revenue Taxes, Civil Penalties and Interest and 5� SUBJECT: the Extra-Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal Violation of the Code Through 55 SUBJECT: Payment of a Suggested Compromise Penalty "\mending Certain Sections of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 Relative to the Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax "\ssessment "\mending Certain Sections of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, as _\mended by Revenue Regulations No. 18-13, Relative to the Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax _\ssessment.

Page 8 of14 DECISION CT.\ C\SE NO. 10711 "SECTION 3. Dtte Process Reqztirement in the Issttance of a Deficienry Tax Assessment. - 3.1 Mode of procedure in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment: XXX XXX XXX 3.1.4 DisptttedAssessment.- The taxpayer or its authorized representative or tax agent may protest administratively against the aforesaid FLD/FAN56 within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof. The taxpayer protesting an assessment may file a written request for reconsideration or reinvestigation defined as follows: (i) ReqNestfor reconsideration- refers to a plea of re-evaluation of an assessment on the basis of existing records without need of additional evidence. It may involve both a question of fact or of law or both. (ii) Request for reinvestigation - refers to a plea of re- evaluation of an assessment on the basis of newly discovered or additional evidence that a taxpayer intends to present in the reinvestigation. It may also involve a question of fact or of law or both. The taxpayer shall state in his protest (i) the nature of protest whether reconsideration or reinvestigation, specifying newly discovered or additional evidence he intends to present if it is a request for reinvestigation, (ii) date of the assessment notice, and (iii) the applicable law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which his protest is based, othe1wise, his protest shall be considered void and withotttforce and e.ffect. XXX XXX XXX For requests for reinvestigation, the taxpayer shall submit all relevant supporting documents in support of his protest within sixty (60) days from date of filing of his letter of protest, otherwise, the assessment shall become final. The term 'relevant supporting documents' refer to those documents necessary to support the legal and factual bases in disputing a tax assessment as determined by the taxpayer. The sixty (60)-day period for the submission of all relevant supporting documents shall not apply to requests for reconsideration. Furthermore, the term 'the assessment shall 56 That is, the "Fonnal Letter ~/Demand and FinalADuJment T\fotite". /'

Page 9 o�14 DECISION CT-\ C-\SE NO. 10711 become final' shall mean the taxpayer is barred from disputing the correctness of the issued assessment by introduction of newly discovered or additional evidence, and the FDDA shall consequently be denied. XXX XXX XXX If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest against the FLD /FAN within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. No request for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be granted on tax assessments that have already become final, executory and demandable. If the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner's duly authorized representative, the taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision; or (ii) elevate his protest through request for reconsideration to the Commissioner within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision. No request for reinvestigation shall be allowed in administrative appeal and only issues raised in the decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative shall be entertained by the Commissioner. If the protest is not acted upon by the Commissioner's duly authorized representative within one hundred eighty (180) days counted from the date of filing of the protest in case of a request reconsideration; or from date of submission by the taxpayer of the required documents within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the protest in case of a request for reinvestigation, the taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; or (ii) await the final decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative on the disputed assessment. If the protest or administrative appeal, as the case may be, is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner, the taxpayer may appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision. Otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. A motion for reconsideration of the Commissioner's denial of the protest or administrative appeal, as the case may be, shall not toll the thirty (30)-day period to appeal to the CTA. r

Page 10 of14 DECISION CT"-\ C-\SE NO. 10711 Ifthe protest or administrative appeal is not acted upon by the Commissioner within one hundred eighty (180) days counted from the date of filing of the protest, the taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from after the expiration of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; or (ii) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of a copy of such decision. It must be emphasized, however, that in case of inaction on protested assessment within the 180-day period, the option of the taxpayer to either: (1) file a petition for review with the CTA within 30 days after the expiration of the 180- day period; or (2) await the final decision of the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative on the disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the CTA within 30 days after the receipt of a copy of such decision, are mutually exclusive and the resort to one bars the application of the other. XXX XXX xxx." (EmphaJeJ added) To summarize: 1. If the protest is wholly or partially denied by respondent's duly authorized representative, the concerned taxpayer may: (i) appeal to this Court, within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision; 57 or (ii) elevate his protest through request for reconsideration to respondent, within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision. 2. If the protest is not acted upon by respondent's duly authorized representative within one hundred eighty (180) days counted from the date of filing of the protest in case of a reqtteJtfor reconsideration; or from the date of submission by the taxpayer of the required documents (which must be made within sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the protest) in case of a reqtteJt for reinveJtigation, the concerned taxpayer may: (i) file a Petition for Review with this Court, within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the said one hundred eig~ ' 7 CommiJJioner ~(Intenzal NJ;emte tJJ. S outb Entertainment Gallery, Im:, G.R. No. 223 767, "-\pril 24, 2023, citing Commi.rJioner qfliztmzal Revmtte v.r. Domingo jeJJJellm, file., G.R. No. 221780, l\Iarch 25, 2019.

Page 11 of14 DECISION CT\ C\SE NO. 10711 (180)-day period fixed by law for respondent to act on the disputed assessment; or (ii) await the final decision of the respondent's authorized representative on the disputed assessment. 3. I f the protest or administrative appeal, as the case may be, is denied, in whole or in part, by respondent himself, the taxpayer may appeal to this Court, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the decision. Otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. 58 4. I f the protest or administrative appeal is not acted upon by respondent himself within one hundred eighty (180) days counted from the date of filing of the protest, the concerned taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to this Court, within thirty (30) days from after the expiration of the said one hundred eighty (180)-day period; or (ii) await the final decision of the respondent on the disputed assessment, and appeal such final decision to this Court, within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the said decision. Hence, it is evident that the one hundred eighty (180)-day period under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, and its implementing rules, is confined only to the period within which either the respondent or his duly authorized representative may act on the initial protest against the FLD/FAN, particularly, from the date of filing of the protest (in the case of a requestfor reconsideration) or from the submission of supporting documents (in the case of a request for reinvestigation). There is no provision for a separate or "fresh" one hundred eighty (180)-day period for the respondent to act on an administrative appeal for purposes of computing the thirty (30)-day period to appeal to this Court. This was emphasized in Nueva Ecija II Eledric Cooperative, Im: Area II (NEE CO II Area II) vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue,59 where the Supreme Court stated as follows: "Notably, Section 3.1.4 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-13, which implements Section 228 of the Tax Code, provides for alternative courses of action to the taxpayer upon its receipt of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment issued by the authorized representative of respondent Commissioner on Internal Revenue (respondent), including the option of elevating the protest to the respondent himself through ~ sx Philippine AmttJemmt and Gaming Corporation IJJ. Bureau ~/Internal &1/Jenue, et. a!., G.R. No. 208731, Januat-y 27, 2016. 59 G.R No. 258101. April 19, 2022, dting MiJ!let, Im: tJJ. CommiJJioner ofInternal Rmmte, G.R. No. 210604,June 3, 2019.

Page 12 of14 DECISION CT-\ C-\SE NO. 10711 a request for reconsideration. However, nowhere in said provision does it provide that a fresh 180-day period is granted to the respondent to act on such administrative appeal. As aptly observed by the CTA EB, upholding petitioner's argument would run contrary to the clear language of Section 228 and would unduly expand the period provided by the law. Necessarily, taxpayers must exercise their rights in the manner and within the periods provided by statute and the pertinent regulations. "It bears to stress that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is a jurisdictional requirement and failure to do so renders the questioned decision or decree final and executory and no longer subject to review." Revisiting the facts of the present case, it is indubitable that petitioner submitted supporting documents along with its Request for Reinvestigation dated January 18, 201960 on February 6, 2019. Thus, counting one hundred eighty (180) days from February 6, 2019, respondent or his duly authorized representative has until August 6, 2019 to act on the same. However, petitioner received the FDDA dated March 15, 2021,61 issued by Regional Director Gerry 0. Dumayas, only on April23, 2021; and this impelled petitioner to file a Request for Reconsideration to respondent on May 24,2021.62 On the belief that respondent has a fresh one hundred eighty (180)-day period from May 24, 2021, or until November 20, 2021, to act on its Requestfor Reconsideration, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on December 20,2021,63 or within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the alleged fresh one hundred eighty (180)-day period. But as already pointed out by this Court, there is no provision for a separate or "fresh" one hundred eighty (180)-day period for the respondent to act on an administrative appeal for purposes of computing the thirty (30)-day period to appeal to before this Court. Thus, considering that the one hundred eighty (180)-day period has already lapsed by the time respondent issued the FDDA on March 15, 2021, there is no longer any appealable inaction in this case, contrary to the claim of petitioner. Petitioner's only recourse would be to await respondent's final decision or implied denial on its administrative appeal, and elevate the same before this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt or notice thereof. Since the present Petition for Review was filed way beyond the thirty (30)- day reglementary period to appeal an inaction on the administrative !" 611 Par. 7, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- \rol. I, p, 361; Exhibit "P-6", (as per Petitioner's Formal Offer qfEvidencefor the Petitioner With M.otion to Mark the USB Aavmpm!ying the !CPA Report, Docket- Vol. II, p. 473), BIR Records, pp. 1285 to 1290. !>I Par. 8, Summary of Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. I, p, 361; Exhibit "R-14", BIR Records, pp. 1358 to 1361 "2 Exhibit "P-8" (as per Petitiomr'J Formal Offer oj'Evidencefor tbe Petitioner II;7itb Motion to Mark tbe USB Actompat!)'ing the !CPA Repot1, Docket- Vol. II, p. 474), Docket- Vol. I, pp. 199 to 216; Refer also to Q&A 20, Exhibit "P-16", Docket- Vol. I, p. 321. 60 Docket- \rol. I, pp. 6 to 26.

Page 13 of14 DECISION CT"-\ C-\SE NO. 10711 protest/appeal, this Court was deprived of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. It bears emphasis that this Court, being a court of special jurisdiction, can take cognizance only of matters that are clearly within its jurisdiction.64 Moreover, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.65 Consequently, this Court cannot rule on the matter relating to the subject deficiency tax assessments. ACCORDINGLY, the present Petitionfor Review is DISMISSED, for this Court's lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. jy_~ ""-->- ....._____ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Assodate Justice WE CONCUR: ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~-~ r-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Assodate }llstice Chaitpenon r..r Commi.rJioner olintema! RnJeJme v.r. L~ 1~ Domi11go jel/!eller.r, Im:, supra. 65 Mit.r11bi.r!Ji MotorJ Philippines C01poratio11 v.r. B11reatt ?lCNJtom.r, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015.

Page 14 of14 DECISION CT/1, C-\SE NO. 10711 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~# ~ ._,......___ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Acting Presiding Justice