G.R. No. 129433 - People vs. Campuhan

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed a petition contesting Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc Decision dated November 10, 2021, and Resolution dated October 7, 2022.
Respondent is Fort 1 Global City Center, Inc. (FGCCI).
The case concerns deficiency tax assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against FGCCI for taxable years 2009 and 2012.

BIR issued Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) dated January 24, 2012, for deficiency income tax, VAT, withholding tax, and documentary stamp tax.
After FGCCI contested the PAN, BIR issued a Final Assessment Notice (FAN).
FGCCI protested the FAN, but BIR issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) dated October 13, 2016, confirming liability of PHP 1,598,860,663.45.

BIR issued PAN dated February 3, 2016, and FAN dated March 15, 2016, totaling PHP 134,099,378.74.
FGCCI filed a protest to the FAN, but BIR did not act on it.

FGCCI argued the BIR notices were served to addresses different from the principal address in FGCCI's 2016 General Information Sheet (GIS).

2009 notices sent to 30th Street, Bonifacio Blvd., Global City, Taguig.
2012 notices sent to 32nd Street, corner Boni Avenue.
Registered address in 2016 GIS was Unit 2C-B, FPS Building, 1st Avenue, corner 30th Street, Global City.

FGCCI alleged unauthorized persons received the notices and BIR failed to prove delivery to authorized representatives.
CIR contended proper service was made, evidenced by "stamped received" notations and that FGCCI responded to and protested the assessments.

FGCCI filed two separate petitions which were consolidated before the CTA.
CTA 2nd Division held the assessments void due to improper service citing non-compliance with Revenue Regulation (RR) No. 12-99.
The CTA Division emphasized the failure to identify authorized recipients and absence of designation and authority acknowledgment in BIR notices.
The CTA En Banc affirmed the CTA Division decision but noted that the GIS is not the proper evidence for taxpayer’s registered address; the BIR Certificate of Registration should be the basis.
Despite the CIR’s arguments, the CTA En Banc rejected the petition for review due to insufficient votes, effectively affirming the cancellation of the deficiency tax assessments.

CIR filed a Petition for Review out of time, which was accepted based on the principle that procedural rules may be relaxed to serve justice considering the tax amounts at stake.
CIR argued BIR notices were served at the registered address in BIR-Integrated Tax System (BIR-ITS), not the GIS address.
CIR emphasized FGCCI’s failure to update its BIR address and its admission of receiving the notices.
FGCCI maintained the invalidity of service due to failure to ascertain the authority of recipients and delivery to wrong addresses.

Revenue Officer Ventura (2009 notices) could not recall positions or authority of recipients.
Revenue Officer Usman (2012 notices) failed to comply with RR No. 18-13; relied on guard’s information without ensuring proper service.

Supreme Court ruled the petition was late but granted extension for the interest of justice.
BIR notices presumed valid if sent to address registered with BIR as per RR No. 12-85 and RR No. 07-12.
FGCCI failed to notify BIR of address updates; thus, the BIR-ITS address is presumed correct.
Despite this, tax assessments canceled due to non-compliance with proper service requirements under RR No. 12-99 and RR No. 18-13.
Failure to establish authority of recipients rendered the assessments void under Section 228, National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code).

The BIR’s Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), Formal Assessment Notice (FAN), and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) were served at incorrect addresses.
The Revenue Officers failed to comply with procedural requirements under RR No. 12-99 and RR No. 18-13 by not ascertaining and recording the authority of the persons who received the notices on behalf of FGCCI.