COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GLOBAL BUSINESS POWER CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 3107 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10869) Petitioner, Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, -versus- MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, ANGELES, TESTON, and CENTENO-DIJAMCO, JJ. GLOBAL BUSINESS POWER Promulgated: CORPORATION, Respondent. OCT 2 0 2026 ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ){ RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.l: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 27 April 2026)" ("Motion for Reconsideration") flied on May 06, 2026 with Respondent's "Comment (on the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 27 April 2026) dated 6 May 2026)" ("Commen t") flied on June 01, 2026. Petitioner's Mo tion for Reconsideration prays for the reversal and setting aside of the Court En Bant!s Decision 1 dated April 27, 2026, and the issuance of another decision denying the initial petition flied by Respondent for utter lack of mer~ 1 l ei., pp. 80-92.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3107 (CTA Case No. 10869) The dispositive portion of the Decision promulgated by this Court on April 27, 2026 reads: "ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated November 18,2024 and Resolution dated February 25,2025 of the Pirst Division in CTI\ Case No. 10869 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."" In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to comply with the documentary and evidentiary requirements prescribed by the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, applicable rules and regulations, and jurispmdence. According to Petitioner, Respondent was mistaken in treating the filing of the letter request for refund to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a mere procedural step before filing with the Court of Tax I\ppcals ("CT/1."). Petitioner also claims that the failure of Respondent to submit relevant documents at the administrative level makes the administrative claim for tax refund or credit pro forma. Since there is no record of Respondent ever submitting complete requirements under Revenue Memorandum Order ("RMO") No. 53- 98, it is only appropriate to construe d1at there was no administrative claim filed at all. On the other hand, Respondent, in its Comment, asserts that Petitioner's reliance on fu\,10 No. 53-98 and Revenue Regulations No. 2-2006 is misplaced and cannot defeat Respondent's claim for refund. This is because refund cases before the CTA arc litigated de novo and resolved based on the evidence formally presented and offered during trial. Respondent likewise avers that Petitioner failed to rebut the competent evidence establishing its entidement to the refund claimed. Petitioner notably failed to point out in his Motion for Reconsideration any specific supposed error in the Court En Bane's finding that Respondent is entided to be refunded the amount of Php11,248,774.96. Instead, Petitioner merely relied on general statements and did not identify any factual or legal basis that would justify disturbing CTA's findings. \'Ve resolve to deny Petitioner's ~fotion for Reconsideration for lack of mcriv 2 Id., Decision dated April 27, 2026, pp. 90-91.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3107 (CTA Case No. 10869) The arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion are mere recapitulation of the arguments raised in his Petition for Review filed with this Court. In addition, these issues have been amply considered, weighed, and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, \V'e shall not belabor, in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to overturn the assailed Decision dated .April 27, 2026 which affirmed the Decision dated November 18, 2024 and Resolution dated February 25, 2025 of the CTA First Division. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 27 April2026)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. L.~I--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: . \ JEAN MARg;~RO-VIILENA · sociate Justice MARIARf{WE I\l ~ g,u..o f. ~ ~ ny~ MARIAN IVYFt.kEYEs-~~JARtlo Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3107 (CTA Case No. 10869) ~#.tJC-~·~ CORAp"}N G. FERRE - Associate Justice HENRY~GELES "-\ssociate Justice • DEBBI AN I. CENTENO-DIJAMCO Associate Justice