CTA Case No. 2050 (Decision)

.'l.EPU!ILIC OF THE PiiiLIPPINEI COURT OF TAX APPE.ALI ~UEZON CITY GUANZON LD1E DEVELOPMENT co~, me., Petitioner , - versus - - C. T. A. CJ\SE No. 2050 CONMISS IO~f'ER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . x- - - - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION On pctober 28, 1969, petitioner filed a pe.ti- . tion for review praying for the refund of the amount of �26,599.67, representing ad valorem tax alleged to have been erroneously paid to respondent for the period from the 3rd quarter of 1966 to the 2nd quarter : of 1968. On December 9, 1971, after issues were joined by respondent's answer and before trial of the case, re- spondent wrote petitioner a letter, the ru11 context of which states as follows: In connection with the claim of � your client, Guanzon Lime and Develop- ment Co., for refund of the sum of ~26,599.69 representing erroneous pay- ment of ad valorem taxes for the pe~iod from the 3rd quarter of 1966 to the 2nd quarter of 1968 under letters dated August 1$ 1968 and Petition for Review in CTA Case� No. 3050, I have the honor to inform you that under the circum- stances obtaining in sa'id case, we have finally determined the marlret value of the quarried limestone for the taxable years in question. Accordingly, after readjusting tlE ad VCJ.lorem taxes paid by your client and following th~ deci-

DECISION - CTA CASE No. 2050 2 in G. R. No. L- Please be informed , however, that release or the tax credit certiricate cover ;tng said amount will be held in abeyance until such time as the cour.ts shall have finally decided your appeal from our assessment of 7%manufacturer's sales tax amounting to ~450,299. 99. (Exh. -A, P� 22, CTA rec . ; underlining supplied. ) On the basis of said letter , petitioner~ on February 8, 1972, .fUed a motion for summary judgment contending that said letter 11is a confess ion of judg- ment which renders hear mg on this case unnecessary", and tl'a t the condition in the last paragraph thereor n1s immaterial for the reason that the same has not been pleaded in the answer as a counterclaim or a cross claim. tt On February 12, 1972, during the hearing on its motion, petioner manifested, through counsel, that it is satisfied with the sum o.f �25 , 511. 50 adjUdged in its favor by ~espondent; that, instead of a taX credit, said amount s muld be refunded to it; and that the refund should not be made to depend upon the out- come of the appeal on the assessment for 7%sales tax because the same has no bearing and pertinence in the present case. On the other hand, respondent's counsel offered no objection to petitioner's motion for sum-

DECISION - CTA CASE No . 2050 3 mary judgment . In fact, she manifested that the case (involving claim for refund of ad valorem tax) should be dismiss~d since the issue has been administratively resolved by respondent when he adjudged petitioner as entitled to a tax credit amow1ting to �25 , 511 . 50 . Conside.ring that in his letter above (Exhibit A) , respondent , in effect , admits that for the period in question petitioner has made an erron:ous payment of - ,..j. ad valorem tax in thlil sum of ft1:25 , 5~1 . 50 and the fact that petitioner , at the hearing, had expressed its sa- tisfac~ion thereto , we believe that there no longer exists a genuine issue as to any material facts which needs to be proved at the trial in this case . V:Je agree with the petitioner that t he overpaid ad valorem tax should be refunded to it, instead of being merely allowed as a tax credit . This is so because re- spondent ' s assessment for 7-fo sales tax against � peti- 1 tioner amounting to ~4-50 , 299 ..99 is .still pending deter- mination before this Court and until petitioner shall have been finally adjudged li able thereto , the same can- not as yet be made a valid basis tor setoff a gainst the - amount of ~25 , 511 . 50 adjqdged in , favor of petitioner as overpaid ad valorem tax . And for one thing, the pos- sible liability of petitioner for sales tax in another case is a matter extraneous to the present . It is the re- sult of another assessment with a ' basis distinct from that of the present and had to follow its own procedural course since it had not been joined with the present case .

DECISION - C~A CASE . No. 2050 4 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, jUdgement is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to refund to peti- - tioner the amount - of �25 , 511. 50 , representing' er- roneously paid ad valorem tax for the period from the 3rd quarter of 1966 to the 2nd quarter of .1968. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, March 13 , 1972. ~ i-t(~ _ RAMON L. AVANCENA �.Associate JUdge WE CONCUR : ROMAN M. UMALI ~ i~:~ I' ~AO R. ALVAliZfr Associate Judge