C.U.T. COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll\1111111 11111111111111111111111111111 18-000423-0088 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 9933 C.U.T. COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. MARVEEN B. DELAPAZ Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City GALlAS & RIVERA LAW OFFICES 3rd Floor, Prestige Tower, F. Ortigas Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on August 13, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, August 14, 2024. AttyE. xMeacruitiav~ ~~ CFo.uCrthaIIn-Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION C.U.T. COMMERCIAL CTA Case No. 9933 CORPORATION, Members: Petitioner, Pr DEL ROSARIO, Chairperson, - versus - MANAHAN, and REYES-FAJARDO, Il BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. RES REYES-FAJARDO, J.: For the Court' s resolution is the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration1 of the Decision promulgated on March 21, 2024. In the Assailed Decision, the Court annulled the BIR's Preliminary Collection Letter dated August 15, 2018 (PCL) issued against C.U.T. Commercial Corporation (petitioner or C.U.T. Commercial) for being void and ineffectual. Petitioner no longer filed a comment/ opposition to the instant motion.2Thus, on May 22, 2024, the Court resolved3 to submit the BIR's Motion for Reconsideration for resolution. In the present motion, the BIR raises the same matters already passed upon and discussed at length by the Court in the Assailed Decision. To stress, the Court's jurisdiction covers "other rnatters" arising from the BIR's administration of tax laws and regulations,4 which include collection measures employed by the tax authorities, such as the subject PCL. Also, the PCL was issued and implemented notwithstanding that the assessment was not yet due and demandable. 1 Docket, pp. 563-568. 2 As per Records Verification dated May 9, 2024, issued by the CTA Judicial Reco rds Division. Also see Resolution dated May 22, 2022. 3 In a Resolution dated May 22, 2022. 4 Section 7(a)(1), Republic Act (R. A.) No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9933 Thus, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Light Rail Transit Authority v. Bureau of Internal Revenue,s the subject PCL is void. In sum, in the absence of substantial arguments and only mere reiterations of past arguments to support the motion, there is no reason for the Court to reverse or modify the Assailed Decision.6 Any further discourse will only be unnecessary and repetitive? WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Bureau of Internal Revenue' s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on March 21, 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ 9.tw f.~ -F~ MARIAN pfy F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~/- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice s G.R. No. 231238, June 20, 2022. 6 See Shangri-la International Hotel Manage111ent. Ltd. v. Developers Group ofCompanies, lnc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007, 541 PHIL 138-143. 7 Social Justice Sociehj (5 JS) Officers, et al. v. Lim, G.R Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10,2015. Also see Roque, Jr. v. Commission 0 11 Elections, G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), Febru ary 10, 2010, 626 PHIL 75-92).