cta_resolution CTA Case No. 1015210152 2024-09-26

ORICA PHILIPPINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION ORICA PHILIPPINES, INC ., CTA Case No . 10152 PeLiLioner , Members: -versus- MANAHAN , Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Prom lJJ. aat2~U<il:~ SEP l. b INTERNAL REVENUE, R e s p o n d e n t. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - - :-:_- ZJ~ ')~ ~ : ~ .: - - - - - X RESOLUTI ON MANAHAN, J.: This r esolves petit ioncr's Mo tion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision o n t he Petition for Review dated 8 May 2024)1 filed on June 24, 2024, praying for giving due course to the instant motion , the reversal of the Court's Decision d ated May 8 , 2024 (Assa iled Dec is ion) ,2 a nd granting its claim for refund in the amount o f Php27, I ~~,243 . 95 r eprese nting its unutilized inpu t value-add ed lax (VAT) attributable to its expor t sales for the second (2nd) to fourth (4 1h) quarters of fiscal year (FY) ended September 30, 20 17 or lh c period from January 1, 20 17 to September 30, 2 0 17. Petitioner a rg u es th a t the judicial a ppeal for VAT refund for the 2nd to 4th qu a rter s o f FY 2 017 was filed within t h e prescriptive period provid ed under the p ertinent provis ions of the 1997 National In te rn a l Reve nue Code (NIRC), as amen ded, and its imple m enting rules and regu lations. Petitione r ins is ts lhal Lh e a pplicable law at the time of t h e filing of the adm ini strative a nd judicia l claims for refu nd is Section 112(C) of the 1997 NIRC , as a m ended by Republic Act (RA) No . 10963 or the Tax Refo rm for Acceleration and Inclusion I Dock et, CTA Case No. 101 52, Vol. Ill. pp. 1180- 1192. 2 !d., Vol. Ill , pp. 116(> 1 1 7<J. ~

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10 152 (TRAIN) Law, h en ce, th e j uris prude ntia l b a sis of this Court is n ot in all fours with th e in s ta nt cas e. Petitioner also argu es that to construe inaction of the respon d en t as d eemed d enia l contra ven es the intention of th e lawmake r s in d eleting t h e "d eemed -d enied" provision of th e 1997 NIRC , as amend ed by the TRAIN La w. On the oth er h a n d , responden t , in his Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration of t he Decision dated 8 May 2024)3 filed on July 10 , 2 02 4 , counte r argues that the abovementioned arg um e n ts by p etition er is utterly misplaced. The Ruling This Court sha ll d e termine first wh ether the in stant Motion wa s filed on time . Section 1, Rule 15 o r Lh e Re vis ed Rules of th e Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) provides t hat: "SECTI ON 1. Who may and when to file motion.- Any aggrieve d party may seek a recons ideration o r n ew tr ial of any decisio n , rcsolutioJl , o r orci cr of t he Court. He s h a ll file a motio n fo r rcconsicicr<�lt ion or ncvv Lria l within fifteen days from the date he receive d notic e of the decision , re s olution or ord e r of Lh e Co u rL in qucslio n ." (Emp hasis s upplied) The r ecords of th e instan t case reveal that petitioner, through its cou nse l, received th e copy of th e Assailed Decision on May 15 , 2 02 4. 4 In accordance with the abovementioned provision of the RRCTA, respond ent h a d fifteen (15) days from receipt of n otice of s a id d ecision !'rom Ma y 15 , 2024 or until May 30, 2024 within w h ich lo Ci le his motion for reconsideration. Based on th e records of th e case, this Court received th e instant motion on J une 24, 2024. It a ppears from the accompanyin g enve lo pe and lh c n ota tion m a d e by the Judicial Records Divisio n th a t t he motion was se rved "via Grab". 3 Doc ket, Vol. Ill , pp . l 196- 1202. 4 Doc ket, Vol. lll , Not ice of Decision , p. I 165. ~

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10152 Thus, the filing of p eti tion er's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision on the Petition for Review dated 8 May 2024) on June 24, 2024 was b eyond the prescriptive period. WHEREFORE, p etitioner 's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision on the Petition for Review dated 8 May 2024) is hereby DENIED for b eing fil ed out of time. SO ORDERED. c~�r.Afc.c..~~-- WE CONCUR: cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice :=N. I~ 'VtJf F..R.EI~ �8-~fAt�C~ANRADO Associate Justice HENRY it.NGELES Associate Justice

Want an analysis of this document?

Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.