COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ASURION HONG KONG LIMITED-ROHQ

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2257 REVENUE, (CT1\ Case No. 9518) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.j., CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- UY, R I N GPIS- LIBA N , MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. ASURION HONG KONG LIMITED ROHQ, Promulgated : Respondent. F X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (RE: Decision Promulgated June 23, 2021)"1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") flied on July 26, 2021 via registered mail, with Respondent's "Comment (Re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated July 26, 2021)"2 ("Comment") flied o n November 15, 2021. Petitio ner's ~lotion for Reconsideration prays for the following: 1) That the "Petition for Review" flied on June 11, 2020 through registered mail, be given due course; ~ Rollo, pp. 91-103 . 2 !d., 107-116.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2257 (CTA Case No. 9518) 2) That the Decision3 promulgated on June 23,2021 ("Assailed Decision") be set aside; and 3) That a new decision be rendered denying Respondent's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of Php4,065,163.03, allegedly representing unutilized input value-added tax ("VAT") attributable to its zero-rated sales of services for the period September 01, 2014 to December 31,2014. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated October 02, 2019 and the Resolution dated February 24, 2020 of the Second Division in the case docketed as CTA Case No. 9518 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner contends that Respondent's sales of services that do not qualify to zero-rating should be subjected to twelve percent (12%) output VAT. Petitioner also avers that Respondent's documentary exhibits, in support of its refund claim, are inadmissible and has no probative value. On the other hand, Respondent in its Comment maintains that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration deserve scant consideration and should be denied outright for being a rehash of its original "Petition for Review". We agree with Respondent. Petitioner's contentions are mere reiterations of the arguments raised in its "Petition for Review". Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, to discuss anew the explanation of the Court on these matters is superfluity. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. ~ 3 Id., pp. 77-86. 4 Id., Decision dated June 23, 2021, p. 85.

RESOLUTION ITA EB NO. 2257 (CTA Case No. 9518) WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated June 23, 2021)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~. AA- .A~ WE CONCUR: MA BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Presiding Justice ~~c.Q.:r,._,~/ Q. <:f'UANITO C. CASTAr'mDK,JR. Associate Justice E~P.UY ~~~�04!-J, ~ ......e...._____ Associate Justice CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice .,..... JEAN lVll\.KvYH\ ~ ~F.~-F~ ~~~ MARIAN IWF. RE~S-FAjARDO LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Associate Justice