G.R. No. 215950 - Tridharma Marketing Corp. vs. Court of Tax Appeals

BIR Assessment and Initial Response
On August 16, 2013, Tridharma Marketing Corporation received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) assessing P4,640,394,039.97 in deficiency taxes (IT, VAT, WTC, EWT, DST), inclusive of surcharge and interest.
A substantial portion arose from the BIR’s complete disallowance of 2010 purchases from Etheria Trading amounting to P4,942,937,053.82. Tridharma replied via letter dated August 30, 2013.

Formal Demand, Final Assessment, and Payments
On September 23, 2013, the BIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand assessing P4,697,696,275.25 for the 2010 taxable year; Tridharma filed a protest and submitted additional documents as required.
On February 28, 2014, the BIR issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment totaling P4,473,228,667.87 (IT P3,169,257,355.52; VAT P1,298,134,526.24; WHT, DST, EWT aggregating the balance).
Tridharma filed a Request for Reconsideration; denied on May 26, 2014. It paid P5,836,786.10 covering WHT, DST, EWT and reiterated compromise offers on IT and VAT.

CTA Proceedings and Surety Bond Requirement
On June 13, 2014, Tridharma appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), docketed as CTA Case No. 8833, with a Motion to Suspend Collection of Tax.
July 8, 2014 CTA Second Division resolution granted suspension but required a 150% surety bond of P6,701,087,822.64 and compliance with accreditation and documentary requirements.
Tridharma moved for partial reconsideration; December 22, 2014 resolution reduced the bond to P4,467,391,881.76 (equivalent to the IT and VAT deficiency).

Supreme Court Certiorari and TRO
Tridharma filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging CTA abuse in ignoring the patent illegality of the assessment and imposing an impossible bond.
On February 9, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the CTA resolutions and the collection of the deficiency assessments.

Whether the CTA Second Division gravely abused its discretion by requiring a P4,467,391,881.76 surety bond—exceeding petitioner’s net worth and impeding its ability to contest the assessment—despite alleged patent illegality.