Title
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 185371
Decision Date
Dec 8, 2010
CIR's tax assessment against Metro Star deemed void due to failure to prove receipt of mandatory Preliminary Assessment Notice, violating due process.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 185371)

Facts:

  • Examination and Audit
    • Metro Star Superama, Inc. (Metro Star) is a domestic corporation.
    • On January 26, 2001, BIR Region 10 issued Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 00006561 to examine Metro Star’s 1999 tax records, revalidated August 10, 2001.
  • Assessment Proceedings
    • Metro Star failed to comply with records requests and a Subpoena Duces Tecum; Legal Division endorsed to Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 67 for assessment based on best evidence.
    • RDO No. 67 issued a Preliminary 15-day Letter on November 8, 2001; Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice on April 3, 2002, assessing P292,874.16 deficiency VAT and withholding tax.
  • Collection Efforts and Administrative Remedies
    • Final Notice of Seizure dated May 12, 2003; Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 67-0029-23 issued and received February 6, 2004.
    • Metro Star filed Motion for Reconsideration (July 30, 2004); Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) denied it on February 8, 2005. Metro Star then petitioned the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
  • CTA Proceedings
    • CTA-Second Division, March 21, 2007: granted Metro Star’s petition, voided assessment for denial of due process (no proof of PAN receipt).
    • CTA-En Banc, September 16, 2008: affirmed Second Division decision; denial of CIR’s motion for reconsideration on November 18, 2008. CIR elevated case to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Due Process in Issuance of Deficiency Assessment
    • Whether CIR complied with due process under NIRC and Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 in issuing the assessment.
    • Whether Metro Star is liable for P291,069.09 (VAT) and P1,805.07 (withholding tax), and whether the assessment became final and demandable for failure to protest within 30 days.
  • Additional Contentions
    • Whether the assessment notices stated the law and facts upon which they are based (Section 228, NIRC).
    • Whether Metro Star’s cinema operations are subject to VAT under Section 108(A), NIRC.
    • Whether the assessment was based on the best evidence obtainable (Section 6(b), NIRC).

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.