The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has denied the petition filed by Midtown Printing Co., Inc. on the dismissal by the Department of Finance (DOF) of its appeal against the ruling of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which assessed the firm for deficiency income tax, withholding tax and value added tax for 2009.
Midtown Printing, which specializes in printing and publishing yearbooks, received a Notice of Conference from the BIR on May 11, 2012 on its tax deficiencies.
On July 23, 2012, the firm received the Preliminary Assessment Notice which found it liable for tax deficiencies based on gross receipts derived from printing of yearbooks contracted with different schools and designated student groups. The amount of the deficiency taxes was not mentioned in the CTA decision.
When the firm’s stand that the printing of yearbooks is exempt from value added tax was denied by the BIR, it filed a request for review before the DOF.
The DOF, however, dismissed the request for review in a Letter-Resolution dated Sept. 11, 2018 due to belated filing. The DOF ruled that Midtown Printing filed its request for review almost two years after receiving the same and, thus, it was filed beyond the 30-day period provided by the rules.
Midtown Printing elevated the issue before the CTA in a petition for review filed on March 13, 2019 and received by the tax court on April 2, 2019.
It told the CTA that the DOF should have passed upon the substantive issues raised in its request for review instead of outrightly dismissing it on pure technical grounds.
The DOF, on the other hand, insisted that the timely filing of an appeal is not only mandatory but jurisdictional.
In resolving the issue, the CTA ruled that the DOF "properly dismissed" its request because it was "evidently time-barred."
"While petitioner alleged circumstances which, according to it, warrant the relaxation of the procedural rules and the resolution of the case on the merits, it failed to present evidence to prove the same. Basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence," the CTA ruled.
Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban wrote the 12-page decision with the concurrence of Associate Justice Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores.