7/27/2019 32. CIR vs Metro Star Superama - CD

1/2

CIR versus METRO STAR SUPERAMA

G.R. No. 185371

December 8 !"1"

SECOND DI#ISION

$ACTS AS TO PETITIONER

BIR conducted an examination over respondents records for income tax and other internalrevenue taxes for the taxable year 1999.For Respondents failure to comply with severalrequests for the presentation of BIR proceeded with the investiation based on the bestevidence obtainable preparatory to the issuance of assessment notice. !n "ovember #$%&&1$ it was ascertained that there was deficiency value'added and withholdin taxes duefrom Respondent.

$ACTS AS TO RESPONDENT

!n (pril 11$ %&&%$ Respondent received a Formal )etter of *emand for deficiency value'added and withholdin taxes for the taxable year 1999. +ubsequently$ BIR sent a copy of the

Final"otice of +ei,ure !n February -$ %&&$ Respondent received a /arrant of *istraintand0or)evydemandin payment of deficiency value'added tax and withholdin tax payment.he 2( rantedpetitioners claim findin that respondent did not received the 3(". It$accordinly$ ruledthat the Formal )etter of *emand dated (pril 4$ %&&%$ as well as the/arrant of*istraint and0or )evy dated 5ay 1%$ %&&4 were void$ as 5etro +tar was denieddue process. he 2IR$ insisted that 5etro +tar received the 3("$ dated 6anuary 1-$ %&&%$and that due process was served nonetheless because the latter received the Final

(ssessment "otice 7F("8$

ISSUE RAISED %& PETITIONER

1. 3etitioner arues that respondent received the 3("

%. 3etitioner also arues that due process is nevertheless served because respondentreceived F(".

ISSUE RAISED %& PETITIONER

1. Respondent arues that it did not received the 3("%. Respondent arues that the warrant of distraint and0or levy is void since it did not

received a 3(".

RU'ING O$ T(E SUPREME COURT

1. (s to whether respondent received any 3("$ the 2ourt ruled in favor of respondent.

It is incumbent upon the BIR to prove by competent evidence that such notice wasindeed received by the addressee. he onus probandi is shifted to 2IR to prove bycontrary evidence that the respondent received the assessment in the due course ofmail. as found by the 2($ the 2IR failed to dischare its duty and present anyevidence to show that respondent received the 3(" dated 6anuary 1-$ %&&%. Itcould have simply presented the reistry receipt or the certification from thepostmaster that it mailed the 3("$ but failed. ence$ as far as the 2ourt isconcerned$ respondent did not receive any 3(".

7/27/2019 32. CIR vs Metro Star Superama - CD

2/2

%. (s to whether the 3(" is not necessary the 2ourt ruled in favor of respondent.+ection %%# of the ax 2ode requires that the taxpayer must first be informed that heis liable for deficiency taxes throuh the sendin of a 3(". It is clear that the sendinof a 3(" to taxpayer to inform him of the assessment made is but part of the :due

process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment$: the absence ofwhich renders nuatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. e must beinformed of the facts and the law upon which the assessment is made. he lawimposes a substantive$ not merely a formal$ requirement. o proceed heedlessly withtax collection without first establishin a valid assessment is evidently violative of thecardinal principle in administrative investiations ' that taxpayers should be able topresent their case and adduce supportin evidence. 1

PERSONA' END NOTES

axes are the lifeblood of the overnment and so should be collected without unnecessaryhindrance. !n the other hand$ such collection should be made in accordance with law as any

arbitrariness will neate the very reason for overnment itself. It is therefore necessary toreconcile the apparently conflictin interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that thereal purpose of taxation$ which is the promotion of the common ood$ may be achieved.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_185371_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_185371_2010.html#fnt14