This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-05-18 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that petitioner should have addressed its arguments to respondent at the first opportunity - upon receipt of the 3 September 1986 notices of assessment signed by Municipal Treasurer Norberto A. San Mateo. Thereafter, it should have availed of the proper administrative remedies in protesting an erroneous tax assessment, i.e., to question the correctness of the assessments before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA), and later, invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA).[28] Under the doctrine of primacy of administrative remedies, an error in the assessment must be administratively pursued to the exclusion of ordinary courts whose decisions would be void for lack of jurisdiction.[29] But an appeal shall not suspend the collection of the tax assessed without prejudice to a later adjustment pending the outcome of the appeal. The failure to appeal within the statutory period shall render the assessment final and unappealable.[30] Petitioner having failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to it, the assessment attained finality and collection would be in order. | |||||