COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PROCESS MACHINERY CO., INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1999 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9217) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ PROCESS MACHINERY CO., INC., Promulgated: Respondent. .fEB 1 7 2021 X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: Before this Court En Bane is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, filed through registered mail on 17 September 2020,1 with respondent's Comment to Motion for Reconsideration ("Comment"), filed on 10 November 2020. 2 In the Motion for Reconsideration,3 petitioner alleges that respondent should be held liable to pay deficiency Value Added Tax ("VAT") for issuance of VAT official receipts covering transactions amounting to Php29,750,076.39. This is because there must be a strict compliance with the invoicing requirements under the National Internal Revenue Code (uTax Code"). If this Court En Bane will tolerate respondent's wrong policy of issuing VAT sales invoice and VAT official receipt for the same transaction, this will result in an absurd situation to the prejudice of the government because respondent's customers can claim the tax credit representing input.c/ 1 Records, pp. 90-94. 2 /d. , pp. 98- 103. 3 /d. , pp. 90-9 1.

RESOLUTION CTA EBNO. 1999 (CTA Case No. 9217) Page 2 of3 VAT twice, while respondent only declared output VAT once in its VAT return. The government then ends up refunding a tax which has not been paid at all. In its Comment,4 respondent counter-argues that: 1. The jurisprudence cited by petitioner in the Motion for Reconsideration are wholly inapplicable to the case at bar, considering that the same involves a VAT refund case while the present Petition for Review ("Petition") involves a deficiency tax assessment; 2. The Tax Code does not penalize a VAT-registered person by imposing VAT twice for one transaction as a result of issuing both a VAT invoice and a VAT official receipt for the same transaction; 3. Respondent's issuance of both a VAT invoice and a VAT official receipt for the same transaction was a result ofpetitioner's confusing revenue issuances; and 4. It is highly unlikely that the government will refund a tax which has not been paid at all given the quantum of evidence necessary to prove entitlement to a tax refund. We deny the Motion for Reconsideration. The arguments raised therein are an exact copy of those raised by petitioner in his Petition filed before this Court En Bane. Thus, these have already been sufficiently tackled in the Decision, dated 17 July 2020. On this finding alone, this Motion for Reconsideration deserves scant consideration. This Court En Bane has no other recourse but to deny the Motion for Reconsideration for failure to raise an issue worthy of this Court En Bane's attention. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MARIA 4 /d, pp. 98-101.

RESOLUTION CTA EBNO. 1999 (CTA Case No. 9217) Page3 of3 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice . . .-r;- a.u~ Cc. C.ASMT-AN-E~u~Q, . JR. Jt<f'ANITO Associate Justice ERL~.UY Associate Justice ~. 4hA._ ./'----- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~-:7--/ktu�-c.e. - CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice JEAN MARJEfiJf,fcoRRQ...VILLENA