For lack of jurisdiction, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has dismissed the petition filed by Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation against the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for a tax refund of P28.9 million in alleged deficiency value added tax (VAT) from July 1 to Dec. 31, 2014.

Fort Bonifacio Development received the Letter of Authority (LOA) from the BIR dated Oct. 7, 2016 from the bureau’s Large Taxpayers Service (LTS) which authorized its officers to examine the firm’s books of accounts and other accounting records for VAT.

The corporation then received on Aug. 24, 2017 a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) dated Aug. 18, 2017 for deficiency VAT in the total amount of P32,037,684.30.

It later received the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) dated Sept. 8, 2017, assessing it for deficiency VAT for the second semester of 2014 in the amount of P32,383,476.05. The company then filed its Protest Letter against the FLD on Oct. 13, 2017. The BIR, however, assessed the corporation in a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) for deficiency VAT of P28,987,923.78 on Nov. 20, 2020.

Bonifacio Development Corporation challenged the BIR’s FFDA before the CTA on Dec. 21, 2020.  It claimed that the assessment was null and void for violation of its right to due process.

But the CTA dismissed the corporation’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The tax court said that the petitioner (corporation) failed to fulfill its undertaking to submit the documents involved in the assessment. Thus, the court said, the deficiency VAT assessment has become final pursuant to Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended.

It pointed out that there is no administrative protest to speak of, and "no decision on a disputed assessment to assail."

"As such, when a petition for review is filed before this Court, without validly contesting the assessment, the appeal is premature, and the Court has no jurisdiction," the CTA ruled.

It also said: "It bears emphasis that this Court, being a court of special jurisdiction, can take cognizance of matters that are clearly within its jurisdiction. To stress, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.”

The 15-page decision was written by Associate Justice Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro.