G.R. No. L-18383; May 30, 1966
CELESTINO C. JUAN, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Celestino C. Juan filed his income tax returns for 1947 to 1951 on time and paid the assessed taxes. In 1952, a revenue agent examined his 1950 and 1951 returns and assessed a deficiency tax. Upon petitioner’s request, a reinvestigation was granted, which expanded to include 1947, 1948, and 1949, resulting in a deficiency assessment totaling P75,585.18 dated January 5, 1953. Petitioner protested and requested another reinvestigation. The Commissioner, in a May 11, 1954 reply, asked for an outline of objections and evidence, and a waiver of the defense of prescription. Petitioner complied with the first two but refused the waiver. On May 13, 1957, a new assessment reduced the total to P73,522.67. On December 20, 1957, petitioner again requested reinvestigation and signed a waiver of the statute of limitations. No reinvestigation appears to have been made, and on December 15, 1959, the Commissioner issued a warrant of distraint and levy. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals on May 4, 1960. He filed a motion to suspend the collection, which the court granted on January 4, 1961, conditioned on a P75,000 bond. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the warrant was null because the assessments were made beyond the prescriptive period. The Tax Court denied the motion on March 13, 1961, holding that the applicable law at the time of the warrant’s issuance was Section 332(c) of the Tax Code, and since the last assessment was May 13, 1957, the collection was timely. Petitioner appealed these two resolutions to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal from the interlocutory resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals (dated January 4, 1961 and March 13, 1961) is proper and timely.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as premature. The Court ruled that the resolutions in question were interlocutory, not final. The first resolution granted the suspension of collection upon filing a bond, and the second merely denied reconsideration of a declaration on the warrant’s legality. These did not constitute a final decision on the main petition, which still pending issues such as the correctness of the assessment, the need for recomputation, and the validity of the waiver. The issue of prescription raised by petitioner could and should be addressed in an appeal from the final decision of the Tax Court. The case was remanded to the Court of Tax Appeals for continuation of proceedings.