CTA Case No. 3600 (Decision)

AJ' REPUBLIC OF HI: FJULIPPINU COURT OF T APPEALS QUEZON Cl'n' DATAPREP (PHILS.) 1 INC. , C.T.A. CASE NO. 3600 Pet itioner: , - versus - COMHI SSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . K - - - - - - - - ~ - .- K DEC I S I 0 N An action to enforce a claim f or a refund of alleged erroneously or wrongful ly withheld tax:es ~ t source under the provisions of the Expanded With- holding Tax Regulations, which i mplements P.D. 1351. As it appears, petitioner Dataprep (Phils.) . I nc ., a domestic corporation , filed wi th the res- pendent Commissioner of I ntern al Reven~e written claims for: refund in letters dated February 24, ' 19A3 (Annex 11 C") .and March 11 , 1983 (Annex "D " ) .in the respective amounts of ~172,869.29 and ~281,718.57 or: a total of ~454 1 58 7 . 8 6 r:e'pr:esen ting taxes withheld t hru its wi t hholding agents from receivable income . during the tax years 1980-81 and 1981-82 pursuant to Revenue Regulations No ., 13.-78 a s amended by Revenue Regulations No e -6-7.9 . In support therefor , petitioner: avers that l osses were incurred over and \ 19

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3600 2- above the amount sought to be refunded as shown in the income tax returns for the s aid taxable ye:ars (Annexes A 11 11 and "B 11 1. that it is not expected to ) realize profit for the current year of business operations ; that the tax \v i thheld an d de,ducted, herein sought to be refunded , was duly declared as part of petitioner ' s gross income for the years aforementioned ; that the fact of withholdings was duly receipted by its payors as evinced by copies of the: I ncome Tax Receipts (BIR Form No . 17 43) ;. and , to hedge against the running of the statutory period of limitation petitioner filed t his petition on March ~1, 1983 . It does appear in the in stant ~ase that peti- tioner ' s Income Tax Re~urns for the fisc al years ended March 31 , 1981 and March 31, 1982 f airly dis- . c:lose losses inc:urred ove r and above the taxable amount sought to be r efunded (Exhs . "A" and "B") ;.� that its various customers (Exh . "C") .withheld and deducted amounts on petitioner ' s i ncome as covered by such requisite statement or certification pur- suant to Revenue Regulations No. 1 3 - 78 as amended by Revenue Regulations No . 6-79 aggregating the sum of il4:54 ,587 .86 e (Exhs . "D", "D-~ 11 and "D-2" ; '!E" , "E-1" an d " E-2"; "F" ; "G "; "H"; " I" ; "J"; " K" ; "L"; "M" ; "N" ; " 0 11 "P "; " Q"; "R" , "R-1"; "S" , "T" , "T-� 1." I� ; _, � 80

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. � 3600 . - 3- "U" , " U-~ " and "U-2, "�I "Vn and 91 V-l" ; nw"; " X"; ny n i nz" ; "AA"; "BB"; 11 CC", "CC-1" to "CC-4."�, "DD ", "DD- 1," to " DD-9" ; "EE"; "FF" , "FF-1 " to "FF-4." ,� "GG" , "GG-1" to 't:;G- 2 0" ; "HH"; "II "; "JJ"; "KK"; 11 LL"; "MM!!; "MN" , "Vill-1 to "MN-11" ; "OO" , "00-1... ; "PP" ; "QQ" ; " RR"; "SS" , "SS-1" to "SS-7"; " TT" , "TT-l" to "TT-~"; 11 UU"; "W " ; "WW "; "XX"; 11 YY " ; "ZZ " and "ZZ -1,"; " AB" 1 "AB- 1 " to "AB-8" ; "AC " 1 " AC-1 " to "AC-9." �I " AD " I "AD-1 " �to "AD-1,3."; " AE" ; 11 AF" ; "AG"; 11 AH"; "AI " : "AJ" ; " AK" ; "AL"; "AM"; "AN" ; 11 AO"; "AP", "AP-1," to " AP-8" ; "AQ " 1 " AQ-1" to " AQ-10"; "AR" 1 " AR-1." and " AR-2."; "AS " ; " AT ", "AT-1" to "AT-3... ; " AU ": " AV ", "AV-1" ar.d "AV-2" ; "AW"; "AX "; " AY"; "AZ " and " AZ-1." ; " BA"; "BC" 1 11 BC-l" to "BC-9"; " BD " , "BD-1" to ~D-1,1"; an d " BE") ~ It d oes not appea~ that respondent disputes the re~ati vely simple rna ter ia l facts excep t that 'the same are as yet to be verified but takes issue on the r e fu ndabil i t y of the amounts withheld on banks' in~ t e rest (Exhs . "U" , "U-1," and "U-2" ; "Z" ; "AA"; "BB"; " CC " , " CC- 1," to "CC-4" ; " GG-10 to "GG-20"; " II" ; "NN", "NN-1." to 11 NN- 11"; " YY" ; "AB" , II AB-1" to "AB-8. "�I " AD ", "AD-~" to 11 AD- 1.3"�I "AE"; "AQ" , " AQ -1" to AQ-10"; " BC " , " BC - 1 " to 11BC-9." I� " BD" , "BD-1 " to " BD-1.1") on the gr ound that under P eDe NO e 1739 payment of i nterest is fi nal on bank deposits and therefore not creditable. Respondent poses no objection however in having the 81

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3600 . - 4- case submitted for decision on the basis of peti- tioner ' ~ evidence and the pleadings . The question here presented is whether, under the circumstances, petitioner has established a valid claim to a refund of the taxes withheld and deducted but which towards the end of the hearing t he veri- fication thereof seems dawdled over min utiae. The records makes i t clear that petitioner ' s income tax returns for the taxable years in question have shown losses . Respondent has not i ssued any deficiency assessment nor disputed the correctness thereof. The requisite statement or certification of the: amounts withheld and deducted by petitioner ' s customers thru which the respondent collected the taxes and upon which tapked the claim for refund could furnish the satisfaction of definite resolution . Respondent points to no factual error nor superflu- i ties which need be abridged except f9r the non credit�� ability of taxes on bank interest payments as earlier pointed out. As thus shown the basis of the claim is not short of specific support in terms of tract- able data openly laid and fully disclosed for any l egitimate analysis, doubt and objection but action .. thereon appeI ars consigned in a limbo of lingering verification to date. We see no re:ason and none is vouchsafed why a simple case , where fact and fabri- cation are no longer indistinguishable, should remain

' 1 DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3600 . - .5 - curiously unperturbed. It may be necessary to r epeat what this Court said in what so plainly apply to the case at bar that , "But as should be expected, the action c ould be maintained on the basis of the plead- ings, admission and affidaviL of the parties which neither provokes any unsett.ling questions nor involves material factual issues genuinely in dispute . The administrative machiner y or p rocess emp l oyed on ~he right to the claim seems to have moved barely at idling speed. To be relatively quiescent for some four (4 ) .Years on a claim of such a simple nature and not so considerable a stake which no longer i ncites controversy nor excites a queasy sense of expectation , creates but an unwarranted bureaucratic inertia of inaction. Readily a legal conclusion can be safely reached . Petitioner or any similarly circumstanced t axpayer for that matter deserves a measure of fair dealing in a more expeditous and competently resportsive act i on . " (Commonwealth Pacific Consultants, Ltd ., v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No . 2953, May 15 , 1982) ~ The ci rcumstances obt a i ning in the c ase at bar c6mpel us to sustain the t enability of petitioner ' s right to the refund based on the evidence �and pleadings o Moreover, this Court cannot coyly acquiesce to labor in chronic curiosity and thus serve as a "wailing 83

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3600 -6 wall" for the petitioner's predicament to the suffer- ance of that "well known policy of the c ourt to expedite the disposal of cases to prevent t heir dockets from being clogged, and it is incumbent upon the parties to take the initiative in the prompt dis- posal of cases as a duty to themselves, to the court and to the public i n general." (Masiglat v. Mayor of Pasay, 104 Phil. 319 cited in 101 SCRA 644) ~ And, i f "taxes are the lifeblood of government and their prompt collection and certain availability are an i mperious ne ed" and therefore, "must be pa id immediately without delay", in the same token and for reasons deemed hardly less i mperative and important, a taxpayer is equally entitled to a definite resolve on a claim l ikewise responsive to his needs. Peti- tioner in the case at bar deserves no different treat- ment . In a manner of speaking , need we k ill the goose prematurely by lapses of fairnes~? We conclude and t his is all we need decide that petitioner has fared consistent with the requirements of l aw and regulat i ons in establishing i ts right to the c laim, except the tax withheld on bank interest which shall be deducted from the amount sought to be refunded as validiy .objected by the respondent . WHEREFORE, as above-qual i fied, respondent i s 84

1 1 DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3600 . - 7- hereby ordered to grant the r efund to t he petitioner wi t hout pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Quez o n City, Metro Manila, Ma r ch 30 , 1 984. WE CONCUR: ,A �� ROAQUIN e Jupge . 85