Surigao Electric Co., Inc. v CTA and CIR; G.R. No. L-25289; 28 Jun 1974

in Legal Chyme by

An exchange of correspondence between petitioner and the CIR ensued on petitioner’s liability for deficiency franchise tax, after the latter issued against petitioner a warrant of distraint and levy in November 1961 to enforce the collection of said franchise tax plus surcharge.

Petitioner requested a recomputation of the 29 April 1963 revised assessment it received on 08 May 1963. When the CIR denied its request, it appealed to the CTA on 01 August 1963.

Whether or not petitioner timely appealed to the CTA.

NO. The letter of demand dated April 29, 1963 unquestionably constitutes the final action taken by the Commissioner on the petitioner’s several requests for reconsideration and recomputation. In this letter, the Commissioner not only in effect demanded that the petitioner pay the tax deficiency 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 indicates the final nature of the determination made by the Commissioner of the petitioner’s deficiency franchise tax liability.

Hence, the thirty-day appeal period should be counted from the day the petitioner received a copy of the Commissioner’s letter dated 29 April 1963.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.