COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 1138 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8357) Petitioner, Present: -versus- Del Rosario, PJ Castaiieda,Jr., Bautista, Uy, Casanova, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Cotangco-Manalastas, and Ringpis-Liban, JJ. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, Promulgated: =tili Respondent. NOV 1Z 2015 t;.2.'-;2S~ �- ~ �x x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, J .: For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision of 29 July 2015), filed on August 18, 2015, with respon d ent's Comment/ Opposition, filed on September 21, 20 15. Petitioner seek s reconsideration of the DecisionI, dated J uly 29, 2 0 15, wh ich d isposed of the case, as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The October 29, 2013 Decision and February 2, 2014 Resolution of the CTA Special First Division in CTA Case No. 8357, are hereby AFFIRMED."2 1 Rollo, CTA EB Case No. 1138, pp. 91-103. 2 Rollo, p. 102.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1138 (C.T.A. Case No. 8357) Page 2 of3 Petitioner rruses the following grounds for reconsideration: I. The Honorable Court erred in ruling that the judicial claim for refund is timely filed because the filing of the said judicial claim for refund is premature. II. The Honorable Court erred in partially granting the claim despite the fact that petitioner failed to comply with the tnvotctng and accounting requirements. On the other hand, respondent argues that the arguments relied on by petitioner were exactly the same grounds and arguments raised in the petition for review and which have already been passed upon and resolved in the assailed Decision. Respondent adds that it submitted its supporting documents to the Department of Finance One Stop Shop Center when it filed its application for refund. As to the alleged failure to comply with invoicing and accounting requirements, respondent reiterates that the presentation of the subsidiary sales journal and subsidiary purchase journal is not part of the requisites for a claim for refund. After reconsideration and careful review of the averments in petitioner's motion and the previous pleadings, the Court En Bane finds no reason to reverse or modify the July 29, 20 15 Decision, which affirmed the Decision and Resolution, dated October 29, 2013 and February 26, 2014, respectively, of the CTA Special First Division. Petitioner's grounds and arguments have been discussed and resolved both in the CTA Special First Division, and in the Court En Bane's Decision. Any further discussion will only be unnecessarily repetitive. WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~)/- f...-4~ AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1138 (C.T.A. Case No. 8357) Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: (On Leave) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~--~ c.Qyt-~t'~� . LOVE L R. BAUTISTA Associate Justice JifANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice ERL~P. UY {On Leave) CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Associate Justice (On Leave) ~ N~~,~.-0~11. ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice Associate Justice r:2h.A. ~ ~ '--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice