CTA junks tax relief plea of hotel operator

THE Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Manila-based Grand Plaza Hotel’s (GPH) petition which sought to reverse a P508,101,381.12 deficiency tax assessment made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
The case stemmed from a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) issued by the BIR to GPH on Sept. 19, 2013, claiming the latter had a deficiency Income Tax (IT) of P326,352,191.20, deficiency Value-Added Tax (VAT) of P142,281,715.20, deficiency Witthholding Tax on Compensation (WTC) of P37,394,321.84, deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT) of P1,312,562.44, and deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) of P760,596.44 for taxable year 2008.
In a 25-page decision promulgated on July 4, CTA Second Division Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. said, “ (the) Court has jurisdiction over the decision of or inaction by the (BIR) in cases involving disputed assessments. However, this does not cover assessment which became final, executory, and demandable.”
According to the decision, “It was only on February 17, 2014 that petitioner sent to respondent a letter requesting for reinvestigation of tax deficiency,” past the 30-day limit for submitting a protest.
Citing Section 3 of the BIR’s Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, the decision said, “The taxpayer or his duly authorized representative may protest administratively against the aforesaid formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof.”
The court ruled, “for failure to file a protest within the reglementary period, the assessment in question became final, executory, and demandable.”
“The fact that an assessment has become final for failure of the taxpayer to file a protest within the reglementary period means that the validity or correctness of the assessment may no longer be questioned on appeal. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition,” read the court’s decision.
Those who concurred with Mr. Castañeda’s decision were Associate Justices Caesar A. Casanova and Catherine T. Manahan.