NIPPO METAL TECH PHILS., INC. (formerly GLOBAL METAL TECH CORPORATION) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City En Bane NIPPO METAL TECH PHILS., CTA EB No. 1273 INC. (formerly GLOBAL (CTA Case No. 8329) METAL TECH CORPORATION), Present: Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO, PJ, CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- BAUTISTA, UY, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CASANOVA, REVENU E, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, and Respondent. RING PIS- LIBAN, }.}. Promulgated: OCT 1 8 2016 , "'::. )(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -)( RESOLUTION CASANOVA, ] .: Before Us is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 17 May 2016), filed thru registered mail on June 16, 2016, with petitioner's Comment (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated 15 June 2016), filed on August 15, 2016. Respondent seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated May 17, 2016, the decretal portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Assailed Decision and Assailed Resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice with attached Audit Results/Assessment Notices dated February 17, 2009 is cancelled and d eclared WITHDRAWN ~

RESOLUTION CTA EB CASE NO. 1273 (CTA Case No. 8329) SO ORDERED." Respondent anchors its Motion on the following grounds, viz: "1. THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS U_PON THE FINAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE, WHICH WAS ALREADY FINAL AND EXECUTORY. II. THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF THE PROCESS TO PETITIONER." Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that respondent's failure to follow the procedures outlined in RR No. 12-99 constitutes a denial of taxpayer's right to due process; that, since it was denied due process when respondent issued the FLD/FAN prior to the lapse of the 15-day period given to the taxpayer to protest the PAN, the FLO/FAN should be considered as null and void, hence, the said assessment could not have become final, executory and demandable. After a second hard look at respondent's arguments in his Motion, We find no compelling reason to grant the same. The arguments raised by respondent had already been fully and exhaustively addressed in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, finding no cogent or substantial ground to warrant reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated May 17, 2016, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 17 May 2016) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. CAESAR~ANOVA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (I maintain my ssent) ~~c~C~EBA~R. Associate Justice ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice

RESOLUTION ER~."UY CTA EB CASE NO. 1273 (CTA Case No. 8329) Associate Justice CUtJo ~- M.:~-G~ LOVELL (sAUTISTA Associate Justice (I concur with the Dissenting Opinion of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario) CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ~.~~, MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice