This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-12-09 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The letter of February 18, 1963 (Exh. G), in the view of the Court, is tantamount to a denial of the reconsideration or [respondent corporation's]...protest o[f] the assessment made by the petitioner, considering that the said letter [was] in itself a reiteration of the demand by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the settlement of the assessment already made, and for the immediate payment of the sum of P758,687.04 in spite of the vehement protest of the respondent corporation on April 21, 1961. This certainly is a clear indication of the firm stand of petitioner against the reconsideration of the disputed assessment...This being so, the said letter amount[ed] to a decision on a disputed or protested assessment, and, there, the court a quo did not err in taking cognizance of this case. Similarly, in Surigao Electric Co., Inc v. Court of Tax Appeals,[13] and in CIR v. Union Shipping Corporation,[14] we held:". . . In this letter, the commissioner not only in effect demanded that the petitioner pay the amount of P11,533.53 but also gave warning that in the event it failed to pay, the said commissioner would be constrained to enforce the collection thereof by means of the remedies provided by law. The tenor of the letter, specifically the statement regarding the resort to legal remedies, unmistakably indicate[d] the final nature of the determination made by the commissioner of the petitioner's deficiency franchise tax liability." The demand letter received by petitioner verily signified a character of finality. Therefore, it was tantamount to a rejection of the request for reconsideration. As correctly held by the Court of Tax Appeals, "while the denial of the protest was in the form of a demand letter, the notation in the said letter making reference to the protest filed by petitioner clearly shows the intention of the respondent to make it as [his] final decision."[15] | |||||