Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated February 8, 2005 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and respondent is ORDERED TO DESIST from collecting the subject taxes against petitioner. The CTA-Second Division opined that "[w]hile there [is] a disputable presumption that a mailed letter [is] deemed received by the addressee in the ordinary course of mail, a direct denial of the receipt of mail shifts the burden upon the part…
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated February 8, 2005 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and respondent is ORDERED TO DESIST from collecting the subject taxes against petitioner. The CTA-Second Division opined that "[w]hile there [is] a disputable presumption that a mailed letter [is] deemed received by the addressee in the ordinary course of mail, a direct denial of the receipt of mail shifts the burden upon the party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee." [5] It also found that there was no clear showing that Metro Star actually received the alleged PAN, dated January 16, 2002. It, accordingly, ruled that the Formal Letter of Demand dated April 3, 2002, as well as the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy dated May 12, 2003 were void, as Metro Star was denied due process. [6] The CIR sought reconsideration [7] of the decision of the CTA-Second Division, but the motion was denied in the latter's July 24, 2007 Resolution. [8] Aggrieved, the CIR filed a petition for review [9] with the CTA-En Banc, but the petition was dismissed after a determination that no new matters were raised. The CTA-En Banc disposed: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the March 21, 2007 Decision and July 27, 2007 Resolution of the CTA Second Division in CTA Case No. 7169 entitled, "Metro Star Superama, Inc., petitioner vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent" are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 263794 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VS. MARILY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 263794 -
CaseG.R. No. 256868 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CORAZON C. GERNALE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 256868 -
CaseG.R. No. 261065 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VS. MAXICARE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION.
G.R. No. 261065 -