COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GRID SOLUTIONS (US) LLC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 2814 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10146) Petitioner, - versus - Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, J:L BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,Il Promulgated: GRID SOLUTIONS (U.S.) LLC, Respondent. X----------------------------------------- - ------ - -X RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: On January 9, 2025, a D ecision1 was r endered, the fallo of w h ich reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Court of Tax Appeals Second Division Decision and Resolution promulgated on February 28, 2023 and October 9, 2023, respectively, in CTA Case No. 10146 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In said Decision, the Cou rt En Bane affirmed the Decision of the Special Second Division of this Court ("Court in Division"), ordering Docket, pp. 10 - 36.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2814 (CTA Case No. 10146) Page 2 of3 petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") to refund respondent Grid Solutions (U.S.) LLC. the total amount of P8,683,100.00, representing respondent's erroneously paid capital gains tax on its sale of Aclara PH shares to Aclara US, by virtue of its exemption pursuant to Article 14 of the Philippine Tax Convention with the United States of America. Unyielding, the CIR moved for reconsideration of said Decision.2 Petitioner maintains, yet again, that the Court erred in not dismissing the respondent's Petition for Review for failure to comply with the verification and non-forum shopping certification requirements3 On the other hand, respondent submits that petitioner's argument is a mere rehash of the same argument in his Motion for Reconsideration before the Court in Division.4 The motion lacks merit. Respondent has established substantial compliance with the verification and certification of non-forum shopping requirements. Respondent expressly manifested that it was unable to submit the authenticated verification and certification of non-forum shopping at the time of filing their judicial claim, on account of distance and time constraints. It submitted to the Court the Apostilled Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping and Director's Certificate as soon as they were able to secure them. This issue was already passed upon and judiciously ruled by both the Court in Division and the Court En Bane. To reinvent the wheel is a wastage of Court's time and resources.s 2 Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration filed via registered mail on February 5, 2025, and electronically on February 6, 2025. Docket, pp. 78- 82. It is noted that the second argument in petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, that" the Court in Division erred in ruling tlznt the subject deficiency tax assessments and subsequently issued �warrant of distraint mzdjpr levy nrc void for violntioll of respondent's riglzt to due process," is clearly an oversight on the part of petitioner. Thus, the same was ignored in the resolution of the Motion. Respondent's Comment/Opposition (re: Peti tioner 1s Motion for Reconsideration dnted 05 Feb.2025), personally and electronically on April16 and 21, 2025, respectively. Docket, pp. 97- 107. Social justice Society (SJS) Officers, et al. v. Lim, G.R Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10,2015.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2814 (CTA Case No. 10146) Page 3 of3 WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision promulgated on January 9, 2025 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~ ~ r. ~ .r'11�~~ WE CONCUR: MARIAN IVVF. REvtS-FAfARDO Associate Justice i,. -iJ..... 7---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice \ . BACORRO-VILLENA stice LANE/JEzS1.uC-UnIt-hDA?~�ID Associate Justice CO~RA�~N.G~ . Flf~ RRE-l<- -0 ~S Associate Justice HENRY 1/!i.NGELES Associate Justice