Case Facts
 BPI vs. CIR  Citytrust Banking Corporation (CBC) filed
its Annual Income Tax Returns for its
Regular Banking Unit, and Foreign
Currency Deposit Unit for taxable year
1986 on April 15, 1987.
 Thereafter, on August 11, 1989, July 12,
1990 and November 8, 1990, CBC
executed Waivers of the Statute of
Limitations under the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC).
 On March 7, 1991, petitioner CIR issued a
Pre-Assessment Notice (PAN) against
CBC for deficiency taxes, among which is
for deficiency Income Tax for taxable year
1986 in the total amount of
P19,202,589.97.
 The counsel for CBC filed its protest
against the PAN on April 22, 1991.
 Petitioner, on May 6, 1991, issued a Letter,
with attached Assessment Notices,
demanding for the payment of the
deficiency taxes within thirty (30) days from
receipt thereof.
 The counsel for CBC filed its Protest
against the assessments on May 27, 1991
and another Protest on February 17, 1992.
 Petitioner insists that respondent failed to
elevate the tax assessment against it to the
CTA within the required period.
 Respondent, on the other hand, claims that
it never received any final decision on the
disputed assessment from petitioner
granting or denying the same, whether in
whole or in part.
 Asian Transmission Corp.  ATC is a manufacturer of motor vehicle
vs. CIR transmission component parts and engines
of Mitsubishi vehicles.
 On January 3, 2003 and March 3, 2003,
ATC filed its Annual Information Return of
Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation
and Final Withholding Taxes and Annual
Information Return of Creditable Income
Taxed Withheld (Expanded)/Income
Payments Exempt from Withholding Tax,
respectively.
Issue
 Whether or not respondent
can raise the defense of
prescription against the
efforts of the government to
collect the tax assessed
 Whether or not the waivers
executed by ATC are valid
Ruling
 Yes, respondent can. Petitioner
cannot implore the doctrine of
estoppel just to compensate its
failure to follow the proper
procedure.
 The doctrine of estoppel cannot
be applied in this case as an
exception to the statute of
limitations on the assessment
of taxes considering that there
is a detailed procedure for the
proper execution of the waiver,
which the BIR must strictly
follow.
 As such, the doctrine of
estoppel cannot give validity to
an act that is prohibited by law
or one that is against public
policy.
 From the above disquisitions, it
is clear that the right of
petitioner to assess respondent
has already prescribed and
respondent is not liable to pay
the deficiency tax assessment.
 The period of collection has
also prescribed. 
 Yes.
 In this case, the CTA in Division
noted that the eight waivers of
ATC contained the following
defects, to wit:
o 1. The notarization of
the Waivers was not
in accordance with
the 2004 Rules on
 On August 11, 2004, ATC received Letter
of Authority [(LOA)] No. 200000003557
where [the CIR] informed
 ATC that its revenue officers from the
Large Taxpayers Audit and Investigation
Division II shall examine its books of
accounts and other accounting records for
the taxable year 2002.
 Thereafter, [the CIR] issued a Preliminary
Assessment Notice (PAN) to ATC.
 Consequently, on various dates, ATC,
through its Vice President for Personnel
and Legal Affairs, Mr. Roderick M. Tan,
executed several documents denominated
as "Waiver of the Defense of Prescription
Under the Statute of Limitations of the
National Internal Revenue Code".
 Meanwhile, on February 28, 2008, ATC
availed of the Tax Amnesty [P]rogram
under Republic Act No. 9480.
 On July 15, 2008, ATC received a Formal
Letter of Demand from [the] CIR for
deficiency [WTC] in the amount of
P[hp]62,977,798.02, [EWT] in the amount
of P[hp]6,916,910.51, [FWT] in the amount
of P[hp]501,077.72. On August 14, 2008,
ATC filed its Protest Letter in regard
thereto.
 Accordingly, on April 14, 2009, ATC
received the Final Decision on Disputed
Assessment where [the] CIR found ATC
liable to pay deficiency tax in the amount of
P[hp]75,696,616.75. Thus, on May 14,
2009, ATC filed an appeal letter/request for
reconsideration with [the] CIR.
 On April 10, 2012, ATC received the
Decision of [the] CIR dated November 15,
2011, denying its request for
reconsideration.
 As such, on April 23, 2012, ATC filed the
instant Petition for Review (with Application
for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order).
 On November 28, 2014, the CTA in
Division rendered its decision granting the
petition for review of ATC.
Notarial Practice;
o 2. Several waivers
clearly failed to
indicate the date of
acceptance by the
Bureau of Internal
Revenue;
o 3. The Waivers were
not signed by the
proper revenue
officer; and
o 4. The Waivers failed
to specify the type of
tax and the amount
of tax due.
 Consequently, ATC was not
correct in insisting that the act
or omission giving rise to the
defects of the waivers should
be ascribed solely to the
respondent CIR and her
subordinates.
 Moreover, the principle of
estoppel was applicable.
 The execution of the waivers
was to the advantage of ATC
because the waivers would
provide to ATC the sufficient
time to gather and produce
voluminous records for the
audit.
 It would really be unfair,
therefore, were ATC to be
permitted to assail the waivers
only after the final assessment
proved to be adverse.
 Thus, the CTA En Banc did not
err in ruling that ATC, after
having benefitted from the
defective waivers, should not
be allowed to assail them.
 In short, the CTA En Banc
properly applied the equitable
principles of in pari delicto,
unclean hands, and estoppel as
enunciated in Commissioner of

 San Roque Power Corp vs.
CIR
 It held that ATC was not estopped from
raising the invalidity of the waivers
inasmuch as the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) had itself caused the
defects thereof.
 On August 9, 2016, the CTA En Banc
promulgated the assailed decision
reversing and setting aside the decision of
the CTA in Division, and holding that the
waivers were valid.
 It observed that the CIR's right to assess
deficiency withholding taxes for CY 2002
against ATC had not yet prescribed.
 San Roque Power Corporation is a VAT-
registered taxpayer which was granted by
the BIR a zero-rating on its sales of
electricity to National Power
Corporation (NPC) effective 14 January
2004, up to 31 December 2004.
 On 22 December 2005 and 27 February
2006, the petitioner filed two separate
administrative claims for refund of its
alleged unutilized input tax for the period 1
January 2004 up to 31 March 2004, and 1
April 2004 up to 31 December 2004,
respectively.
 The petitioner argues that at the time it filed
the petitions for review before the CTA on
30 March 2006 and 20 June 2006, no
ruling yet was laid down by the Supreme
Court concerning the 120-day and 30-day
periods provided in Section 112 of the
NIRC.
 Instead, taxpayers such as the petitioner
were guided only by the rulings of the
CTA which consistently adopted the
interpretation that a claimant is not bound
by the 120-day and 30-day periods but by
the two-year prescriptive period as
provided in Section 112 (A) of the NIRC.
 Such CTA decisions, according to the
petitioner, are recognized interpretations of
Philippines' tax laws.
 The petitioner also asserts that the CTA En
Banc erred in applying retroactively
the Aichi ruling as regards the 120-day and
 Whether or not Aichi ruling
can be applied retroactively
Internal Revenue v. Next
Mobile case.
 No.
 At the outset, it bears stressing
that while Aichi was already
firmly established at the time
the CTA En Banc promulgated
the assailed decision, nowhere
do we find in such assailed
decision, however, that the
court a quo cited or mentioned
the Aichi case as basis for
dismissing the subject petitions
for review.
 As we see it, the CTA En Banc
merely relied on Section 112
(D) of the NIRC, which provides
–
 SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax
Credits of Input Tax. –
(A) Zero-rated or Effectively
Zero-rated Sales.- Any VAT-
registered person, whose sales
are zero-rated or effectively
zero-rated may, within two (2)
years after the close of the
taxable quarter when the
sales were made, apply for the
issuance of a tax credit
certificate or refund of
creditable input tax due or paid
attributable to such sales,
except transitional input tax, to
the extent that such input tax
has not been applied against

 Covanta Energy Phil.  On December 6, 2004, the CIR issued
Holding Inc. vs. CIR
 The deficiency assessments were
30-day periods under Section 112 of the
NIRC for the following reasons:  
o (1) the Aichi ruling laid down a
new rule of procedure which
cannot be given retroactive effect
without impairing vested rights;  grant a refund or issue the tax
o (2) a judicial ruling overruling a
previous one cannot be applied
retroactively before its
abandonment; and  from the date of submission
o (3) a judicial decision which
declares an otherwise
permissible act as impermissible
violates the ex post facto rule
under the Constitution.
 Whether or not petition is
Formal Letters of Demand and Assessment
Notices against CEPHI for deficiency
value-added tax (VAT) and expanded
withholding tax (EWT).
respectively in the amounts of P465,593.21
and P288,903.78, or an aggregate amount
of P754,496.99, representing CEPHI's VAT
output tax:
(D) Period within which Refund
or Tax Credit of Input Taxes
shall be Made. - In proper
cases, the Commissioner shall
credit certificate for creditable
input taxes within one
hundred twenty (120) days
of complete documents in
support of the application filed
in accordance with Subsections
(A) and (B) hereof:
In case of full or partial denial of
the claim tor tax refund or tax
credit, or the failure on the
part of the Commissioner to
act on the application within
the period prescribed above,
the taxpayer affected
may, within thirty (30)
days from the receipt of the
decision denying the claim or
after the expiration of the one
hundred twenty-day period,
appeal the decision or the
unacted claim with the Court
of Tax Appeals. 
 – correctly interpreting the 120-
day and 30-day periods
prescribed therein as
mandatory and jurisdictional.
 Thus, it cannot appropriately be
insisted that the CTA En Banc's
imputed error may be traced to
a misplaced invocation of Aichi.
 No. CEPHI is entitled to the
granted immunities
and privileges of the tax
amnesty
program upon full compliance
with
the requirements of R.A. No.
9480.
 R.A. No. 9480 governs the tax
 and EWT liabilities for the taxable year
2001.
 CEPHI protested the assessments by filing
two (2) separate Letters of Protest on
January 19, 2005.
 However, the CIR issued another Formal
Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice
dated January 11, 2005, assessing CEPHI
for deficiency minimum corporate income
tax (MCIT) in the amount of P467,801.99,
likewise for the taxable year 2001.
 This assessment led to CEPHI filing a
Letter of Protest on the MCIT assessment
on February 16, 2015.
 Prompted by the denial of their petition for
review and motion for reconsideration, the
CIR elevated the matter to this Court, by
again assailing the validity of CEPHI's tax
amnesty.
 The CIR reiterated its argument that
CEPHI's failure to provide complete
information in its Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net worth (SALN),
particularly the columns requiring
the Reference and Basis of Valuation, is
sufficient basis to disqualify CEPHI from
the tax amnesty program.
 The CIR also alleged that there is no period
of limitation in challenging CEPHI's
compliance with the requirements of the tax
amnesty program.
 GJM Phil Inc. vs. CIR  On April 12, 2000, GJM filed its Annual
Income Tax Return for the year 1999.
 CIR found out that GJM had tax
deficiencies due to
disallowances/understatements, therefore,
CIR had the right to assess GJM within the
3 year prescriptive period under Sec. 203
of the NIRC or until April 15, 2003.
 On February 17, 2003, CIR delivered the
Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) to
GJM.
 Subsequently, on April 14, 2003, the
Formal Assessment Notice (FAN) were
delivered by the CIR. GJM denied having
received any assessment from the BIR,
 Whether or not the denial of
GJM having received the
Formal Assessment Notice
(FAN) made such right of
assessment by the CIR
prescribe
amnesty program for national
internal revenue taxes for the
taxable year 2005 and prior
years. 
 Subject to certain exceptions, a
taxpayer may avail of this
program by complying with the
documentary submissions to
the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) and thereafter, paying the
applicable amnesty tax.
 Upon the taxpayer's full
compliance with these
requirements, the taxpayer is
immediately entitled to the
enjoyment of the immunities
and privileges of the tax
amnesty program.
 But when: (a) the taxpayer fails
to file a SALN and the Tax
Amnesty Return; or (b) the net
worth of the taxpayer in the
SALN as of December 31, 2005
is proven to be understated to
the extent of 30% or more, the
taxpayer shall cease to enjoy
these immunities and
privileges.
 Yes, it has been settled that
while a mailed letter is deemed
received by the addressee in
the course of mail, this is
merely a disputable
presumption subject to
controversy, the direct denial of
which shifts the burden to the
sender to prove that the mailed
letter was, in fact, received by
the addressee.
 In the case at bar, CIR was not
able to prove that GJM has
received the FAN sent by them
ergo their right to assess has
 thus, such right of assessment by the latter
has prescribed.
 essential to present the registry
prescribed.
 To prove the fact of mailing, it is
receipt issued by the Bureau of
Posts or the Registry return
card which would have been
signed by the taxpayer or its
authorized representative.
 And if said documents could
not be located, the CIR should
have, at the very least,
submitted to the Court a
certification issued by the
Bureau of Posts and any other
pertinent document executed
with its intervention.
 The Court does not put much
credence to the self-serving
documentations made by the
BIR personnel, especially if
they are unsupported by
substantial evidence
establishing the feet of mailing.
 While it is true that an
assessment is made when the
notice is sent within the
prescribed period, the release,
mailing, or sending of the same
must still be clearly and
satisfactorily proved.
 Mere notations made without
the taxpayer's intervention,
notice or control, and without
adequate supporting evidence
cannot suffice.
 Otherwise, the defenseless
taxpayer would be
unreasonably placed at the
mercy of the revenue offices.