CTA Case No. 195 (Resolution)

--. ,.-- ' JmPUBLJf; OTl' THR PHILfPPINEI COU.rt 1 ut 1-.X APPEALS MANlLA GE1 ~TRAL L..UC.. -RP� 1.X.-1~ PED.il , \.... T. � GAS. 10 . 195 l-'etitione-r Ve"':'SUS Respondent . X- - - - - - - - ---X R~vOLUTIGo~ Respondent Collector of Inte-rnal Revenue assessee against petitione~ the awount of ~l7J , 9G6 . lu as spec ific tax on denatu-red alconol raanufa c tu -red :Jy the lat te~ , plus ;-10 ,OGO .00 as 11 COtllp-rouJise pGnal t y" . fr1e assess.wnt is contained in a lett e.,., cated 1 .ay 00 , .L:J5t"> (hxhibit 1 , pp . 11 - 12 , J . I.R. re c o.,..ds) and -r e- c eived by tne petitione:r:- on June 13 , 1955 (.txhibit 2- �. , pp . 19 - 24 , ~ . ~.R . -r~ c o -r ds, . Petitione-r .,..e~uested ~econsid.eration of the assessmGnt in a lette;.. dated June 22 , 1)55 , whic h was recei ved oy respondent on June 24 , 1055 ( xhioit 2- 3; . un July 2 , 1:)55 , -r es - pondent denied said r Gquest (Exhioit 3 , p. 25 , J. I . 1. -r ecords J whic h denial was rec eived oy petitione-r:- on G uly 1~ , 1955 (e xhibit 3 , p . 25 , 3 . I. R. ,.. ec oras; .t!xhinit 4 - J'l. J p . 28 , J � I. '1. "~"e C ords) . On the s ame date , petittone-r sent anothe-r lette-r -requestins re c on s iderati_on of the asse s s~.Jent ( =xhi.oit 4 , pp . 27- 28 , 3. I . R� .,.,eco-ras ;. This second lette - for -r econsicie-r ation wa s .,.. ec eived 0y r espondent on July 1':1 , 1955 ( �xhibit 4- B) , and on 6epternber 5 , 1:)55 , ', ...,,t.'~ . �, .f. ~

I.. l.ivCLU f IC1. - c. [. G ;;)E 1 '0 . 19:, - 2- r~spondent denied the second request (dxhibit 5 , pp . 36- 37 , J. I. q. records). Petitioner- ~eceived the second denial on Sept~Jber 16 , 1955 , and on Octooer 15 , 1955, it filed the present petition for review. The question to be resolved is whether the petition for review was filed within the thirty- day period prescrioed in ~ection ll of epuoltc Jet ~o . 1125 � ....;oL~puting tbe period frol!l June 13 , 195:, , when petitioner received the assessment , to June 24 , 1955 , I when the request for reconsideratton was received by .respondent , we find that petitioner consu ned eleven (ll) days. The runnin~ of the period was � suspended from June 25 , 1955 to July 15 , 1)55 , when petitioner received the lette~ of respondent of July 2 , 1955 denyin9 the fi~st request for ~econ sideration. ir~1 July 15 , 1955 to July 19 , 1955 , when peticioner again requested reco~sidoration . of the assess; tent , petitioner consu..1ed fou,... days. The peTiod was a9ain suspended from July 20 , 1955 to 3eptember 16 , 1955 , when petitione,... received the denial of its second request for reconsideration . F~Odl 'epternber 17 , 1955 to Cctober 15 , 1-155 , when petitioner filed the pre$ent petition for review , petitioner consumed 29 days. Consequently , peti- tioner consumed a total of 44 days oefore it filed its petition for review . ~etitioner , however, arsues that the period of 30 days should be comDuted fro11 Septe:nbe,... 16,

' ~vOLUTICh..J - C. T. A. -.;;~...;E 1,JC. 19 5 r - .::> - 19~5 , the date i t ~eceived ~espondent's lette~ denying its second request fo~ ~econsideration , and since the petition fo~ ~eview was filed on Get - coer 15, 1~~5 , it is allesed that t~e petition for ~eview was filed within the 30 - day statuto~y pe~iod p~esc~ined in Section 11 of qepuo1ic Act 1\0 . 1125. Tnis Cou~t h~s consistently ruled that the pe,..,iod of thirty days co,n.~len ces to ~un fro..t ~eceipt DY petitioner of the final decision of the Collect - o,.., of Inte~na1 '=l.evenue {.\ns.,el .Sa:raos vs � .du~eau of Internal qevenue , C. T. A. do . 229 , 1'-1arch 5 , 1956; llie~ ced Dr~s house vs . Collector of Jnte:rnal 1evenue , C. T. 1. I-Jo . 180 , :ay 21 , 1)56; VillaJltin vs . Collect - or of Internal qevenue , G. I. A. No . 268 , July 3~ , 1)~6; Jt . Stephen ' s 1 ssociation vs . Col1ecto"':' of Internal Revenue , C. r. A. ilo . 173 , '~ucjust 1~ , 1956). The final decision of respondent in this case is co ntained :i.n his letter of ~>ay 30 , 1)55 , :received oy petitione~ on June 13 , 1~55 . Respondent ' s lette- of September ~ , 195~ , ~eceived by petitione~ on Septer:1ber 16 , 1955 , is .nerel y a denial of peti- tionervs second re quest fo~ reconside~ation and is not to be conside~ed a de ci.sion witL in the 1:1eaninj of Jections 7 and 11 of 'i.epublic t.ct tJO . 1125 . (Pacific Ve;etable il Cc,..,p . v . ~ollector of Inte~nal H.evenue , C. I . A. 1;0 . 297 , (ict . 21"" , l;i..J6.) The second contention of petitione~ is un - tenable . It is a settled ,..,ule that the thi~tv- day

-- -.. c.1EJGLLiJ IC", - T. ,\ . �.""1 'E 1 O. 1�:;~5 - 4- pe-riod presc T:'iJJed in Sec t ion 11 of ~1epu0li c .t.ct .. o . 1125 is ju-risdic tiona l. ( l.ooe"":'t L. Janda v . -..:;ol - lec to -r of Int . "iev ., C . T� . � ~\Io . 87 , Feb . 23 , 1956; St � . ~tephen ' s Assoc iation v . Collec to::- of Int . Rev ., G. T� . � , o . 173 , 1\us., . 15 , 1956; oay View Hotel v . Golle c to .,.. of Int . Rev ., C. T. , � 1.0 . 80 , I ov. 21 , 19:;5; .1e-rc ed Urur ;~ouse v . -..:;ollecto:"" of Int . ev ., ..:: . T � . � hO . 180 , 1..ay L.l , l95f . ; If\j VI :vi OF T.!-: ~ FORE\..10IhG , the her:'ein pe l:i tion fo .,.. T:' eview is 11e'l"eJJy disr~lissea with costs as.,a5.nst petitione:r � .::.i0 OlJJ � PU::O . ,.ssoc 5_ate ~~ ,.A.-li LO l\..,..312 -residin<_ Jud�~ e