This mаtter presents the question of whether the Oklahoma Tax Commission has the authority to extend beyond thirty (30) days the time within which a taxpayer may file a protest of taxes under 68 O.S.1971 § 221 if no action is tаken to extend the protest period within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a proposеd assessment. We hold that the Oklahoma Tax Commission is without such authority under the facts of this case; that the tax assessment in this case is final and absolute; and therefore that the order of thе Oklahoma Tax Commission dismissing Phillips’ protest is affirmed.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. On April 4th and 6th, 1979, the Oklahoma Tax Commission issued and mailed two proposed tax assessments agаinst Phillips Petroleum Company as a result of a field audit for the years 1976 through 1978. The assessments, consisting of additional production tax and excise tax, amounted to $153,936.24 plus interest and penalties. Both letters of the Commission which notified Phillips of proposed assessments stated that аny protest should be made under the provision of 68 O.S.1971 § 221. Section 221(e) states that if a taxpayеr fails to protest within thirty (30) days of the mailing of the proposed assessment, the assessment will become final and absolute without further action of the Tax Commission. Although no request for an extension was made during the thirty (30) day limitation in this case, on days 41 and 43, respectively, the Commission received a letter from Phillips requesting a sixty (60) day extension. The Commission responded that the assessment had become final and absolute by statutory operation of 68 O.S.1971 § 221(e), and that they were without authority to extend the protest period. Phillips argues that paragraph (f) of § 221 authorizes the Commission, under its own discretion, to extend the filing period to ninety (90) days, at any time, even thirty (30) days after the mailing of the assessment, and that it was an abuse of discretion for the Commission to refusе to do so.
We find that Phillips contention is without merit. The pertinent part of § 221 is as follows:
(e) If the tаxpayer fails to file a written protest within the thirty-day period herein provided for or within the period as extended by the Commission, then the proposed assessment, without further action of the Tax Commission, shall become final and absolute at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date same is mailed to the taxpayer or at the expiration of the period as extended by the Tax Commission, (f) The Tax Commission may in its discretion extend the time for filing a protest for any period of time not to exceed an additional ninety (90) days.
A clear reading of the stаtute indicates that any protest against a tax assessment must be made within thirty (30) days from the mailing date or the assessment becomes final and absolute. In the case at bar, Phillips made no сommunication, informal or otherwise, with the Oklahoma Tax Commission within the thirty (30) day limitation. By operаtion of the statute the assessment became final after the 30th day of silence by Phillips.
*285
Unquestionably, the legislative intent is the controlling element in the judicial interpretation of statutes. But if the statutes contain no inconsistent provisions, no ambiguities, or uncertainties, no occаsion exists for the application of rules of construction and the statutes will be acсorded the meaning as expressed by the language therein employed.
In re: Assessment of Champlin Refining Co.,