The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed tax evasion case filed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against businessman Joseph Calata, and agriculture products retailer Agri Phil Corp. In a resolution dated Feb. 27, 2023, a copy of which was obtained by reporters on Wednesday, March 29, the DOJ found “lack of probable cause and insufficient evidence” of the three counts of tax code violation charged by the BIR. “Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully recommends that this Resolution be approved and the complaint filed by the BIR against respondents Agri Phil Corp. and Joseph Calata, for violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended be dismissed for lack of probable cause and due to insufficiency of evidence,” the four-page resolution stated. DOJ Prosecutor General Benedicto A. Malcontento approved the resolution of the case. To recall, the BIR charged Calata and Agri Phil Corp. last Oct. 28 for a total tax liability of P88.86 million, inclusive of increments, for taxable year 2012. The criminal complaint was the filed by BIR Revenue Region No. 5 – Caloocan City against Calata and Agri Phil Corp. for willful failure to pay deficiency income tax, value added tax, and expanding value added tax. But according to the DOJ, the complainant submitted was only 10 sets instead of 30 sets of certified true copies of the documents that form part of the complaint. The agency said this violated Department Circular No. 005 issued on April 11, 2019 that requires the BIR ad the Bureau of Customs to submit no less than 10 sets of certified true copies of the documents that form part of a complaint. The circular stated that failure to comply with the requirements shall be cause for the outright dismissal of a complaint. Furthermore, the resolution pointed out that the filing of the complaint was done with erroneous authority from the BIR commissioner. In a letter to the Secretary of Justice, the BIR chief authorized the filing of the complaint against Calata and Agri Phil Corp. for violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). However, the complaint-affidavit charged the respondents for violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 253 (d) and 256 of the tax code.