COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. FACTS:
Private respondent (Atlas) mining corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, operates a concession in Toledo City, Cebu. It actually used and/or consumed tax paid extra gasoline and diesel fuel for the mining operation purchased on various dates from Mobil Oil Philippines. On July 19, 1978 Atlas filed with the CIR a written claim for tax credit. There being no action taken on its claim for refund on July 21, 1978, petitioner filed the instant judicial claim for refund. The period of specific taxes are as follows:
July-Dec. P1,008,648.15 P252,162.04
Jan.-Dec. P1,834,357.27 P458,589.32
Jan.-May P798,573.60 P199,643.49
Whether private respondent claim for refund of specific taxes paid before 21 July 1976. HELD:
The claim for refund on the specific tax paid prior to 21 July 1976 had already prescribed because claims for refund should be made within two years from the date of payment of the tax sought to be refunded and Atlas' judicial claim for refund was made only on 21 July 1978.
G.R. No. L-38540 April 30, 1987
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
THE COURT OF APPEALS, and NIELSON & COMPANY, INC., respondents. FACTS:
Private respondent contends that they haven’t received the demand letter dated 16 July 1955 of the CIR assessed of the former’s deficiency taxes for the years 1949 to 1952. Petitioner wrote private respondent a follow-up letter dated 19 September 1956, reiterating its demand for the payment of taxes as originally demanded in petitioner's letter dated 16 July 1955. The private respondent did not appeal such follow-up letter dated 19 September 1956. ISSUE:
Whether the letter of demand dated 16 July 1955 mailed to private respondent arises the presumption that the letter was received in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Whether the private respondent can appeal the assessment.
The contention of petitioner is correct that a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the ordinary course of mail, still this is merely a disputable presumption, subject to controversion, and a direct denial of the receipt thereof shifts the burden upon the party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee. Since petitioner has not adduced proof that private respondent had in fact received the demand letter of 16 July 1955, it can not be assumed that private respondent received said letter. Records, however, show that petitioner wrote private respondent a follow-up letter dated 19 September 1956, reiterating its demand for the payment of taxes as originally demanded in petitioner's letter dated 16 July 1955. This follow-up letter is considered a notice of assessment in itself which was duly received by private respondent in accordance with its own admission. The assessment is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the letter. The taxpayer's failure to appeal in due time, as in the case at bar, makes the assessment in question final, executory and demandable. Thus, private respondent is now barred from disputing the correctness of the assessment or from invoking any defense that would reopen the question of its liability on the merits.
G.R. No. L-39910 September 26, 1988
CECILIA TEODORO DAYRIT, TORIBIA TEODORO CASTANEDA, PRUDENCIO J. TEODORO, FRANCISCO J. TEODORO, AND JOSEFINA TEODORO TIONGSON, petitioners, vs.
THE HONORABLE FERNANDO A. CRUZ, Presiding Judge, Branch XII, Court of First Instance of Rizal, and MISAEL P. VERA, in his capacity as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondents. FACTS:
The aforementioned notice of deficiency assessments was received by petitioner Dayrit on August 14, 1972. In a letter dated October 7, 1972,...