THIRD DIVISION

[C.T.A. CASE NO. 9484. June 30, 2020.]

SQUARE ONE REALTY CORPORATION , petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER

OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent.

DECISION

UY , J : p

Before this Court is the Petition for Review 1 led on October 14, 2016 by
petitioner Square One Realty Corporation against respondent Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (CIR), praying that the Final Notice Before Seizure (FNBS) dated September 15,
2016, for alleged de ciency income tax, value-added tax (VAT) and expanded
withholding tax (EWT) in the aggregate amount of P511,012,039.60 for taxable year
(TY) 2012, be declared without force and effect.

THE FACTS

Culled from the records of this case, evidence presented in this case, and as
stipulated by the parties in their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), 2 the
following are the facts of the case:
Petitioner is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic
of the Philippines with business address at 1098 Sanciangco Street, Otis, Pandancan,
Manila. 3 It is duly registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Tax
Identification Number (TIN) 000-146-443-000. 4
Respondent is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue who holds o ce at the 5th
Floor BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 5
On December 16, 2013, petitioner received a Letter of Authority No. 034-2013-
00000259 6 dated October 8, 2013, issued by BIR Revenue Region (RR) No. 6, Revenue
District No. 034-Paco, authorizing Revenue O cer (RO) Nasser Abinal and Group
Supervisor (GS) Manuel Hernandez to examine petitioner's books of accounts and
other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes including documentary stamp
tax (DST) and other taxes for the period January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. EHaASD

Thereafter, petitioner received the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) 7 on

December 17, 2015, issued by Regional Director Araceli L. Francisco, CESO VI of RR No.
6, assessing petitioner for de ciency income tax, VAT, EWT and documentary stamp
tax (DST), including increments for TY 2012 in the aggregate amount of
P493,416,245.73.
In response to the PAN, petitioner led a Reply to the Preliminary Assessment
Notice 8 on January 4, 2016, requesting that the assessments for de ciency income
tax, VAT, EWT and DST for TY 2012, be set aside for being devoid of factual and legal
bases.
On January 13, 2016, respondent thru Regional Director Araceli L. Francisco,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 CESO VI, issued the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) 9 with Assessment Notices (FAN)
1 0 and Details of Discrepancies, 1 1 assessing petitioner for de ciency income tax, VAT
and EWT including increments for taxable year (TY) 2012 in the aggregate amount of
P517,746,664.22, broken down as follows:

Tax Type Total

Income Tax P367,538,166.48

Value-Added Tax 150,206,878.64

Expanded Withholding 1,619.10

Tax

P517,746,664.22

On August 30, 2016, respondent issued Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL), 1 2

which was received by petitioner on August 31, 2016, requesting petitioner to pay its
tax liabilities in the total amount of P517,746,663.12, broken down as follows:

Assessment/Demand Letter Tax To tal

Number Type

34-12-IT-15-0387 IT P367,538,166.48

34-12-VT-15-0388 VT 150,206,878.64

34-12-WE-15-0386 WE 1,618.00

TOTAL P517,746,663.12

Subsequently, petitioner received on September 15, 2016, the FNBS 1 3 issued by

respondent thru Regional Director Araceli L. Francisco, CESO IV, giving petitioner the
last opportunity to make the necessary settlement of its tax liabilities for TY 2012, in
the aggregate amount of P511,012,039.60, detailed as follows: DaIAcC

Assessment/Demand Letter Tax To tal

Number Type

34-12-IT-15-0387 IT 367,538,166.48

34-12-VT-15-0388 VT 143,472,255.12

34-12-WE-15-0386 WE 1,618.00

TOTAL P511,012,039.60

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 On September 26, 2016, petitioner led a Reply to the Final Notice Before Seizure
14 stating that without the FAN being properly served, no proceedings could be initiated
for the collection of said de ciency taxes; and praying that the PCL and the FNBS be
withdrawn and that the subject assessment be cancelled.
Thereafter, on October 14, 2016, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review.
Respondent led his Answer 1 5 on February 6, 2017, interposing, among others,
the following special and a rmative defenses: the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in
this case as the petition was led out of time. Allegedly, the failure of petitioner to
appeal to the Court in due time made the assessments in question, nal, executory and
demandable. The FAN was sent, released and mailed to the taxpayer, and as such the
presumption that the taxpayer received it will lie. Thus, petitioner is liable for de ciency
income tax, VAT and EWT in the aggregate amount of P511,012,039.60 for TY 2012.
Respondent maintains that petitioner was not denied due process; and that the
assessment issued against petitioner is valid and lawful.
The Pre-Trial Conference, initially set on May 4, 2017, 1 6 was reset to June 29,
2 0 1 7 , 1 7 pursuant to a Motion to Reset Pre-Trial 1 8 led on April 26, 2017 by
respondent. On even date, petitioner led its Pre-Trial Brief ; 1 9 while respondent led
his Pre-Trial Brief 2 0 on May 21, 2017.
By agreement of both parties' counsels, 2 1 they led their JSFI on July 12, 2017
22 which was approved by the Court in the Resolution dated July 21, 2017. 2 3
Thereafter, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order on August 25, 2017. 2 4
During trial, petitioner presented its sole witness, Teresita D. Policarpio. 2 5
Petitioner led its Formal Offer of Evidence on September 13, 2017. 2 6 In the
Resolutions dated December 21, 2017 2 7 and June 4, 2018, 2 8 the Court admitted all of
petitioner's evidence.
On the other hand, respondent presented four (4) witnesses, namely: (1) RO
Nasser P. Abinal, 2 9 (2) RO Myla O. Gulle; 3 0 (3) RO Ma. Paz Arcilla, 3 1 and (4) Mailing In-
Charge Benhur C. Nacorda. 3 2 Thereafter on October 24, 2018, respondent led his
Formal Offer of Evidence. 3 3 In the Resolution dated February 22, 2019, 3 4 the Court
admitted all of respondent's evidence.
With the ling of the "Memorandum for the Petitioner" 3 5 on May 10, 2019 and
"Respondent's Memorandum" 3 6 on April 4, 2019, the case was submitted for decision
in the Resolution dated May 20, 2019. 3 7
Hence, this Decision.

THE ISSUE

The stipulated issue 3 8 for the resolution of the Court is: TAacHE

"Whether Petitioner is liable for the amount of FIVE HUNDRED

ELEVEN MILLION TWELVE THOUSAND THIRTY-NINE PESOS AND
SIXTY CENTAVOS (P511,012,039.60) as de ciency income tax, value-
added tax, expanded withholding tax, and administrative penalties
[for] taxable year 2012."
Petitioner's arguments:
Petitioner argues that the assessment is not nal and executory since the FAN
was not received by petitioner. According to petitioner, for an assessment to be valid, it
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 must be duly served and received by the taxpayer. In this case, petitioner asserts that it
did not receive the FAN, in violation of Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC) of 1997.
With respect to what constitutes as valid proof of service, existing jurisprudence
dictates that once the taxpayer denies having received the assessment notice, the
burden of proof rests upon the BIR. Hence, for the alleged failure of respondent to
discharge the burden of proving that the FAN was indeed duly served, the subject tax
assessment is void. DHIcET

Petitioner likewise avers that it is not liable to pay the total amount of
P511,012,039.60 because the assessments for de ciency income tax and VAT
resulted from the comparison of the values of real properties per petitioner's Balance
Sheet, against the fair market values re ected in the Tax Declaration Certi cates; and
that it was error on the part of respondent to assess de ciency income taxes based
solely on the resulting difference in the values of the properties.
Anent the VAT assessment, petitioner points out that there was no sale, barter or
exchange transactions, as the properties remained part of petitioner's assets and as
such the assessment should be cancelled for lack of factual and legal bases.
As regards the de ciency EWT, the same has no legal basis considering that
petitioner is not among the Top 20,000 taxpayers.
Lastly, petitioner alleges that the computation and basis of the additional
imposition of 50% surcharge in the total amount of P125,538,608.23; and de ciency
interest of P134,396,213.91 is iniquitous, if not erroneous. Allegedly, there is no
showing that petitioner has willfully or intentionally led fraudulent returns and that it
has faithfully complied with the ling and payment of taxes guided by existing BIR rules
and regulations.
Respondent's counter-arguments:
Respondent counter-argues that petitioner is liable for de ciency income tax,
VAT, EWT and administrative penalties for TY 2012 and that the FLD/FAN were duly
issued and served to petitioner by registered mail at its business address.
Moreover, respondent claims that for failure of petitioner to timely file its protest,
the subject tax assessments have become final, executory and demandable pursuant to
Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997. As such, the Court could not exercise jurisdiction over
the instant Petition for Review.
Respondent likewise contends that the assessment has factual and legal basis.
According to respondent, petitioner was subjected to income tax assessment on its
undeclared plant, property and equipment, based on third party information pursuant to
Sections 32 and 34 of the NIRC of 1997. Based on the same nding, adjustments on its
output tax were made by the RO pursuant to Sections 106, 108, and 110; and that the
EWT were imposed in accordance with Section 57 of the NIRC of 1997.
Finally, respondent alleges that the assessment is valid and correct and that
petitioner has the burden of proof to impugn its validity; and that for the interest of the
government, the subject assessment must be paid by the respondent without
unnecessary delay.

THE COURT'S RULING

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 Respondent argues that the Court has no jurisdiction over the instant Petition
considering that the subject assessment has already become nal, executory and
demandable.
We disagree.
The Court has jurisdiction
over the present case.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a
court to act on a given controversy. 3 9 The CTA, being a court of special jurisdiction, can
take cognizance only of matters that are clearly within its jurisdiction. 4 0
Pertinent to the determination of this Court's jurisdiction over the instant case,
Section 7 paragraph (a) (1) of RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282, provides as follows:
"SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. — The CTA shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein
provided:
(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases
involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relation thereto, o r other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue ;" (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) IDaEHC

Relative thereto, Section 3 (a) (1), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the CTA likewise
states:
"SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. — The
Court in Division shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by
appeal the following:
(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases
involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue ;" (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Based on the foregoing, the jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to decisions of
the CIR involving disputed assessments, but also includes "other matters" arising
under the NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals (Second Division)
and Petron Corporation, 4 1 the Supreme Court explained the term "other matters
arising under this Code ," as follows:
As the CIR aptly pointed out, the phrase "other matters arising under this
Code," as stated in the second paragraph of Section 4 of the NIRC, should be
understood as pertaining to those matters directly related to the
preceding phrase "disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto" and
must therefore not be taken in isolation to invoke the jurisdiction of the CTA. In
other words, the subject phrase should be used only in reference to cases that
are, to begin with, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA, i.e.,
those controversies over which the CIR had exercised her quasi-judicial
functions or her power to decide disputed assessments, refunds or internal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, not to
those that involved the CIR's exercise of quasi-legislative powers." (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied.)
It is clear from the foregoing that the jurisdiction of the CTA to rule on " other
matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR ," include
those matters which are directly related to the disputed assessments or refunds or
internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto.
In the instant case, what is being appealed by petitioner is the validity of the
FNBS dated September 15, 2016, 4 2 issued by respondent, thru Regional Director
Araceli L. Francisco, CESO IV, requiring petitioner to settle its tax liabilities for TY 2012.
DTCSHA

Considering that the subject FNBS is directly related to the tax assessment
issued by respondent in this case and that the issuance thereof is one of the remedies
for the collection of delinquent taxes sanctioned under Section 206 of the NIRC of 1997
and BIR rules and regulations, this Court is therefore clothed with jurisdiction to
determine the validity of the said FNBS under the phrase "other matters arising under
the NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR."
Finally, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Isabela Cultural
Corporation, 4 3 the Supreme Court held that the FNBS which indicates that the taxpayer
was being given "this LAST OPPORTUNITY" to pay; otherwise, its properties would be
subjected to distraint and levy, constitutes the CIR's final decision.
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the issuance of the subject FNBS
constitutes the final decision of respondent that is appealable before this Court.
The instant Petition for Review
was timely filed.
As regards the timeliness of the subject Petition for Review, Section 11 of RA No.
1125, as amended, provides that any party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of
the CIR may le an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such
decision or ruling.
In this case, the subject FNBS was received by petitioner on September 15, 2016.
Thus, it had thirty (30) days therefrom or until October 15, 2016, to appeal and
challenge its validity with the CTA.
Clearly, the ling of the Petition for Review on October 14, 2016, vested this
Court with jurisdiction over the present petition.
Respondent failed to prove that
petitioner actually received the
FLD/FAN.
Petitioner denies receiving the FLD/FAN for the subject de ciency tax
assessment and argues that absent the required notice, the subject assessment is
void.
On the other hand, respondent insists that the FAN/FLD was sent, released and
mailed, and that the same was validly served to petitioner by registered mail.
We find for petitioner.
Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, lays down the procedure in the
issuance of tax deficiency assessment, viz.: CScTED

"SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment . — When the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Commissioner or his duly authorized representative nds that proper taxes
should be assessed, he shall rst notify the taxpayer of his ndings: Provided,
however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following
cases:
xxx xxx xxx
The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the
facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment
shall be void. " (Emphasis supplied.)
To implement the foregoing provisions, Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99 was
issued which specify the due process requirement to be observed in issuing de ciency
tax assessments. Pertinent portions of Section 3 of RR No. 12-99 reads:
"SECTION 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a
Deficiency Tax Assessment. —
3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a de ciency tax
assessment:
xxx xxx xxx
3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice. — The
formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be issued by the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative . The letter of
demand calling for payment of the taxpayer's de ciency tax or taxes shall state
the facts, the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the
assessment is based, otherwise, the formal letter of demand and assessment
notice shall be void (see illustration in ANNEX B hereof). The same shall be
sent to the taxpayer only by registered mail or by personal delivery . If
sent by personal delivery, the taxpayer or his duly authorized representative
shall acknowledge receipt thereof in the duplicate copy of the letter of demand,
showing the following: (a) His name; (b) signature; (c) designation and authority
to act for and in behalf of the taxpayer, if acknowledged received by a person
other than the taxpayer himself; and (d) date of receipt thereof." (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)
Based on the foregoing, respondent or his duly authorized representative shall
issue the FLD/FAN, which shall be sent to the taxpayer only by registered mail or by
personal delivery. The use of the word "shall" in these legal provisions indicates the
mandatory nature of the requirements laid down therein. 4 4 Thus, it is essential for
respondent to establish and prove that the said FLD/FAN were duly served to the
taxpayer.
Further, in tax assessment, due process requires that the taxpayer must actually
receive the assessment. Relative thereto, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
the case of Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 4 5 is instructive, to wit:
"Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that if the taxpayer
denies ever having received an assessment from the BIR, it is
incumbent upon the latter to prove by competent evidence that such
notice was indeed received by the addressee . The onus probandi was
shifted to respondent to prove by contrary evidence that the Petitioner received
the assessment in the due course of mail. The Supreme Court has consistently
held that while a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the course
of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption subject to controversion and a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 direct denial thereof shifts the burden to the party favored by the presumption to
prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee (Republic vs.
Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 351) . . . cDCEIA

xxx xxx xxx

What is essential to prove the fact of mailing is the registry receipt issued
by the Bureau of Posts or the Registry return card which would have been
signed by the Petitioner or its authorized representative . . . " (Emphasis
supplied.)
Based on the foregoing pronouncement, if the taxpayer denies having received
the assessment notices, it is incumbent upon respondent to prove by competent
evidence that the assessment notices were indeed received by the taxpayer.
In the instant case, considering petitioner's categorical denial that it received the
FLD/FAN sent to its registered address, it became incumbent upon respondent to
prove the receipt thereof by the taxpayer.
For his part, respondent presented the following documents to prove the service
of the FLD/FAN:
1. Transmittal of Final Assessment Notice/Demand Letters for Mailing dated
January 13, 2016, stamped received by the Administrative Division of the
BIR RR No. 6, Manila; 4 6
2. Transmittal Letter of the Final Assessment Notice/s and Formal Letter of
Demand/s for Mailing dated January 13, 2016, addressed to the
Postmaster, Central Post Office, dated January 13, 2016; 4 7
3. Judicial A davit of Benhur C. Nacorda, assigned at the Administrative
Division of the BIR, and designated as Mailing In-Charge; 4 8 and
4. Judicial A davit of Ma. Paz Arcilla, assigned at the Billing Division of the
BIR, whose principal duties include the supervision of the preparation,
issuance and monitoring of demand letters, nal assessment notices and
transcripts of assessments of tax cases. 4 9
However, the Court finds that the above pieces of evidence failed to satisfactorily
prove that the FAN/FLD were actually received by petitioner.
The Transmittal letters presented by respondent only prove that the FAN/FLD
were forwarded to the Administrative Division and to the Post O ce for mailing, but do
not establish the actual mailing and receipt thereof by petitioner.
Further, the Court cannot give credence to the testimonies of Ma. Paz Arcilla and
Benhur C. Nacorda since they were not the ones who actually mailed the FAN/FLD.
Pertinent portions of their testimonies are as follows: DHESca

Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Paz Arcilla: 5 0

"Q8: What did you do next Madam Witness, after your o ce issued the FANs
and the Formal Letter of Demand with attached Details of Discrepancy to
Square One Realty Corporation, if any?
A: The originals of the Final Assessment Notices and Formal Letter
of Demand with attached Details of Discrepancies were
transmitted on January 13, 2016 to the Administrative Division,
BIR Manila, for mailing to Square One Realty Corporation with the
instruction to mail then on January 13, 2016 ."(Emphasis and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 underscoring supplied.)
Cross-examination of Benhur C. Nacorda: 5 1
"ATTY. SUNIEGA
Q. So you are the mailing in charge of the Administrative Division of Revenue
Region No. 6, right?
MR. NACORDA
A. Yes, ma'am.
ATTY. SUNIEGA
Q. In your answer to Question No. 4, you were saying that the Assessment
Notices and the Formal Letter of Demand with the Details of Discrepancy
were served to Square One through registered mail?
MR. NACORDA
A. As per our office record, ma'am.
ATTY. SUNIEGA
Q. So you were the one who actually mailed these documents?
MR. NACORDA
A. No, ma'am , because I have been assigned as mailing in charge
since April 2017. That was mailed by Mr. Armando Macatangay,
the retired.
ATTY. SUNIEGA
Q. The reason you did not personally serve the Assessment Notices and the
Formal Letter of Demand with Details of Discrepancies is that you were
instructed to mail them, is that correct?
MR. NACORDA
A. I am not the one in charge before . I have been assigned since April
2017 and that was 2016, so that was the term of Mr. Armando
Macatangay, the mailing in charge before." (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
Based on the foregoing testimonies, it is clear that Ma. Paz Arcilla merely
transmitted the FLD/FAN to the Administrative Division for mailing; while Benhur C.
Nacardo admitted that he was not yet assigned as the Mailing In-Charge in the
Administrative Division at the time when the subject FLD/FAN were mailed to petitioner.
Thus, both Ma. Paz Arcilla and Benhur C. Nacorda have no personal knowledge on the
actual mailing of the FLD/FAN. TEHIaD

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. GJM Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., 5 2

the Supreme Court discussed the requisite proof to show the fact of mailing of
assessment notices, to wit:
"If the taxpayer denies having received an assessment from the BIR, it
then becomes incumbent upon the latter to prove by competent evidence that
such notice was indeed received by the addressee. Here, the onus probandi has
shifted to the BIR to show by contrary evidence that [the taxpayer] indeed
received the assessment in the due course of mail. It has been settled that while
a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the course of the mail,
this is merely a disputable presumption subject to controversion, the direct
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 denial of which shifts the burden to the sender to prove that the mailed letter
was, in fact, received by the addressee.
To prove the fact of mailing, it is essential to present the
registry receipt issued by the Bureau of Posts or the Registry return
card which would have been signed by the taxpayer or its authorized
representative. And if said documents could not be located, the CIR
should have, at the very least, submitted to the Court a certi cation
issued by the Bureau of Posts and any other pertinent document
executed with its intervention . The Court does not put much credence to the
self-serving documentations made by the BIR personnel, especially if they are
unsupported by substantial evidence establishing the fact of mailing. While it is
true that an assessment is made when the notice is sent within the prescribed
period, the release, mailing, or sending of the same must still be clearly and
satisfactorily proved. Mere notations made without adequate supporting
evidence cannot su ce. Otherwise, the defenseless taxpayer would be
unreasonably placed at the mercy of the revenue o ces." (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)
In order therefore to prove the fact of mailing, respondent must have presented
the Registry Receipt issued by the Bureau of Posts or the Registry Return card which
would supposedly be signed by the taxpayer or its authorized representative. In the
absence of the said documents, a Certi cation issued by the said Bureau of Posts, and
any other pertinent document executed with its intervention, must have been presented
to establish the fact of mailing.
In this case, respondent did not present the registry receipt issued by the Bureau
of Posts, nor the registry return card signed by petitioner's authorized representative to
prove the fact of mailing and actual receipt of the FAN/FLD by petitioner.
Taking all the foregoing into consideration, the Court nds that no competent
evidence was presented by respondent to prove the actual receipt by petitioner of the
FAN/FLD.
As already emphasized, strict compliance with due process requirement is
necessary for a valid tax assessment. The persuasiveness of the right to due process
reaches both substantial and procedural rights and the failure of the CIR to strictly
comply with the requirements laid down by law and its own rules is a denial of the
taxpayer's right to due process. 5 3 Having failed to prove compliance therewith,
respondent denied petitioner of its right to due process.
Consequently, the de ciency tax assessments against petitioner are null and void
for having been issued in violation of the due process requirements under Section 228
of the NIRC and RR No. 12-99. And considering that there is no valid assessment to
begin with, the issuance of the subject FNBS is likewise void and ineffectual. DETACa

With the foregoing ruling, the Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the other
issues raised by the parties.
WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for
Review is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the de ciency tax assessment in the total
amount of P511,012,039.60, for TY 2012 and the Final Notice Before Seizure, issued
against petitioner, are hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE .
SO ORDERED.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY
Associate Justice
Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 10 to 23.

2. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 227 to 231.
3. par. 1, Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI) , Docket — Vol. 1, p. 227.
4. Exhibit "P-2-1", Certificate of Registration, Docket — Vol. 1, p. 290.
5. par. 2, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket — Vol. 1, p. 227.

6. Exhibit "P-3", Docket — Vol. 1, p. 291.

7. Exhibit "P-5", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 296 to 299; Exhibit "R-17", Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 538 to 540.
8. Exhibit "P-5-1", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 301 to 309; Exhibit "R-18", Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 541 to 549.
9. Exhibit "R-23", Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 554 to 555.
10. Exhibits "R-20", "R-21" and "R-22", Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 551 to 553.

11. Exhibit "R-23-A", Docket — Vol. 2, p. 556.

12. Exhibit "P-8", Docket — Vol. 1, p. 350.

13. Exhibit "P-10", Docket — Vol. 1, p. 354.

14. Exhibit "P-11", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 355 to 359.

15. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 79 to 86.

16. Notice of Pre-Trial Conference, Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 88 to 89.

17. Order dated April 26, 2017, Docket — Vol. 1, p. 209.

18. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 100 to 102.

19. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 204 to 208.

20. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 214 to 217.

21. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 224 to 225.

22. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 227 to 231.

23. Docket — Vol. 1, p. 234.

24. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 244 to 250.

25. Judicial Affidavit of Teresita D. Policarpio (In Question and Answer Form) , Exhibit "P-12",
Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 106 to 116.

26. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 255 to 261.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 27. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 374 to 376.

28. Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 416 to 419.

29. Judicial Affidavit of Nasser P. Abinal, Exhibit "R-26", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 445 to 452.

30. Judicial Affidavit of Myla O. Gulle, Exhibit "R-27", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 472 to 477.

31. Judicial Affidavit of Revenue Officer Ma. Paz Arcilla, Exhibit "R-28", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 494
to 497.

32. Judicial Affidavit of Benhur Nacorda, Exhibit "R-29", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 432 to 434.

33. Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 516 to 521.

34. Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 570 to 571.

35. Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 592 to 608.

36. Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 578 to 585.

37. Docket — Vol. 2, p. 610.

38. Issues, JSFI, Docket — Vol. 1, p. 228.

39. Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
185666, February 4, 2015, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Villa, et al., 130
Phil. 3, 4 (1968).

40. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. V.Y. Domingo Jewelers, Inc., G.R. No. 221780, March
25, 2019, citing CIR v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., 146
Phil. 139, 152 (2014).

41. G.R. No. 207843, July 15, 2015.

42. Exhibit "P-10", p. 354.

43. G.R. No. 135210, July 11, 2001.

44. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Enron Subic Power Corporation, G.R. No. 166387,
January 19, 2009.
45. G.R. No. 157064, August 7, 2006.

46. Exhibit "R-24", Docket — Vol. 2, p. 557.

47. Exhibit "R-25", Docket — Vol. 2, p. 558.

48. Exhibit "R-29", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 432 to 434.

49. Exhibit "R-28", Docket — Vol. 1, pp. 494 to 497.

50. Ibid., p. 496.

51. Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) during the hearing held on October 9, 2018, pp. 6 to
7.
52. G.R. No. 202695, February 29, 2016.

53. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc., G.R. No. 185371,
December 8, 2010, citing Tupas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89571, February 6, 1991.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com