CTA Case No. 611 (Resolution)

EPUBLIC OP THE PHILIPPINEIJ COURT OF T X APPEAl-' WA IU 0 ESTATES COLlP ry and C. I . A. C SE NO. 611 V LSTROM , Petitioners , - versus - CO Vv\ISSIO>JER OF INTERN L REVENUE , Respondent . X- - - - - - - - - - - - X RES 0 L UT I 0 N The petitioners are the owners of coconut plan - tations in the Municipality of Padada , Province of Davao. In connection with their sales of copra pro- du ced from their plantations , they ~ere required to pay , as they did pay on January 10 , 1957 , the fixed and percentage taxes imposed by Sections 182 and 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code , itemized and computed as follows : Mindanao Estates Company Fixed tax - -------------- 40. 00 Percentage tax - - --------- 6 , 151. 25 Total -------------------- 6 , 191. 25 Hilda Walstrom Fixed tax - --------------- 20. 00 Percentage tax - --- ------- Total - ------------------- 1 , 401 . 83 1 , 421 . 83 On the ground that sales of copra , an agricul- tural product , are not subject to the sales tax , pe- titioners filed a written claim dated tugust 14 , 1957 , requesting that a portion of said amounts be applied in payment of their income tax for 1956 and the bal - ance refunded to them. This request for tax credit , and refund was denied by respondent in a letter dated

RESOLUTION - C. T. A. C SE NO . 611 -2- September 12 , 1957 , which was received on the � same date by Hilda Walstrom , one of the petitioners here - in. Petitioners did not seek a reconsideration of the decision of respondent . However , in separate let- ters both dated April 17 , 1958 , that is , more than seven months after the receipt of the decision of resp- ondent , petitioners renewed their request for tax credit. The request of Hilda Walstrom was denied by respondent in a letter dated. ugust 26 , 1958 , while that of the Mindanao Estates Company has remained un- answered . The oetition for review was filed with this Court by petitioners only on January 6 , 1959 , and respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. From the facts stated above , it is clear that the appeal of petiti on ers was filed beyond the 30- day period prescribed in Section 11 of Republic ct No . 1125. Accordingly , this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. "We can , therefore , conclude that ~1ere payment has already been made and the taxpayer is merely asking for its refund , he must first file with the Collector of Internal Revenue a claim for refund before taking the matter to the Court , as required by Section 306 of the l~ational Internal Revenue Code and that appeals from deci- sions or rulings of the Collector of In- ternal Revenue to the Court of Tax Appeals must always be perfected within 30 days after the receipt of the decision or rul- ing that is being appealed , as required by Section 11 of Republic ct No . 1125 . x x x � " (Johnston Lumber Co ., Inc . v . Court of Tax Appeals and Collector of In- ternal Revenue ,� G. R. No . L- 9292 , ;pril 23 , 1957 , cited in Gibbs v . Call . of Int . J -

RESOLUTION - 6 . T. A. C. SE rro . 6.1.1 -3- Rev ., C. I . A. No . 418 , Dec . 2 , 1957 , mo- tion for reconsideration denied on Jan . 31 , 1958. ) It is , however , contended that - "The respondent in another ruling dated January 30 , 1958 held that copra , even un - der the provisions of Republic ct 1612 , is exemnt from sales tax when sold in this coun- try by the producer thereof or owner of the land where produced. In this connection it may be stated that the ruling of the resp- ondent exempting copra sales from sales tax under Republic Act 1612 was reiterated by respondent to a query made by the Philip - pine Coconut Producers Federation as shown from the herein attached copy of the reply letter of the respondent . "The implication or effect of the rul - ing of the respondent dated Janoar y 30 , 1958 is that sales tax on copra paid by the produc ers thereof or owner of the land un - der Republi c Act 1612 are refundable which is a reconsideration and reversal of the previous ruling of the respondent dated Sept ember 12 , 1957. " (Page 2 , �nswer to Motion to Dismiss, Feb. 10 , 1959. ) The ruling of responden t dated J anuary 30 , 1958 , referred to by counsel for petitioners is a letter addressed to Senator Emmanuel Pelae z which reads : �I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated January 22 , 1958 and to inform you that copra , even under the provisions of Republic Act No . 1612 , is exempt from the sales tax when sold in this count r y by the producer thereof or owner of the land where produced. " The ruling of January 30 , 1958 cannot have t he effect of amending or superseding the decision of respondent of September 12 , 1957 denying petitioners' clai m for tax credit and r efund , it not appearing that Senator Pelae z was acting for and in behalf of peti- tioners wh en he sought respondent ' s opinion on the t axabil i ty of sales of c opra . Neith~r does it appear

- RESOLuTIO~ C. I . A. CASE NO . 611 -4 - that the ruling was sought to rec on sider the decision of respondent on the case of ~titioners . Even grant- ing that Senator Pelaez did act for and in behalf of petitioners and that his purpose was tG secure a re- consideration of the decision of respondent of Septem- ber 12 , 1957 , his letter of January 22 , 1958 , written more than four months after respondent ' s decision , could not have revived the statutory period for appeal which had previously lapsed for failure of petitioners to request a rec~nsideration of the decision prior to its expiration. Finally , it is argued that - "The statutory provisions on taxes requiring conditions orecedent to the fil- ing of an ordinary civil action for the refund of an illegally paid tax should be liberally c cn strued by the Courts to enable them to inquire into and dete r mine the merits of the case. (Conelly v. City County of San Fran cisco , 127 P., 834; Co- lumbia Gaslight v. Mobley , 137 S. E. 211 ; 61 C. J ., 994 , sec . 1272) . " (Page 4 , Ans- wer to Motion to Dismiss , Feb. 10 , 1959 . ) The rule in this jurisdiction is that the statutory provisions prescribing the period within which deci- sions of tax officials may be appealed are mandatory requirements which must be construed strictly. (Col- lege of Oral and Dental Surgery vs . Court of Tax Ap- peals , ~1 ., G. R. No . L-10446 , January 28 , 1958. ) ~nding that the herein petition for review was filed beyond the 30-day period pr escribed in Section 11 of Republic Act No . 1125 , the same has to be , as it is hereby , dismissed for lack of juris -

RESOLUTION - C.I. A. CASE NO. 611 I -5- diction. With costs against petitioners. � SO ORDERED. Manila , March 16 , 1959. WE CONCURS ~~ Presiding Judge