SMART COMMUNICATIONS INC., v. PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN and LILIA M. LACAMBRA in her capacity as OIC-Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Cagayan

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Second Division SMART COMMUNICATIONS CTA AC NO. 291 INC., (Civil Case No. 8456) Petitioner, Members: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and LILIA M. LACAMBRA, in her FERRER-FLORES, JJ capacity as OIC-Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Promulgated: Cagayan, X ------------------------------~~~~~~ci~~:~~----------------1:~---------------- X r r�r 1��� RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 27 February 2025), filed via registered mail on April 2, 2025, with petitioner's Comment (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated October 9, 2024) [sic], filed on June 18,2025, assailing this Court's Decision, promulgated on February 27, 2025. The Motion lacks merit. First, respondents' use of City of !riga v. CASURECO 1111 ("CASURECO") is misplaced. As noted by petitioner, the Supreme Court in that case ultimately found that the determination of the situs of excise tax is based on gross receipts, "regardless ofthe place where its services or products are delivered." Hence, CSA URECO actually supports Our ruling that the situs of excise tax is based on where the sale is recorded, regardless oflocation of the service or product, and correspondingly does not refute it. G.R. No. 192945, September 5, 2012.

RESOLlTION CTA AC No. 291 Page 2 of2 Respondents' argument on a supposed lack of "credible evidence" misses the mark as well. As they focus on the evidence offered by petitioner, they do not actually address the issues the Court itself found with the assessment. They thus fail to challenge Our finding. As for respondents' claims of having made a jeopardy assessment, it is telling that they do not even attempt to show how the collection efforts would be jeopardized by delay, or cite any law or jurisprudence to show that a failure to submit records is enough basis for such. We thus cannot accept the claim. Finally, the Court notes that what We are barring is the invalid or illegal collection of excise tax. Our ruling thus does not contradict the "purpose" of the tax, certainly not as much as illegally collecting or assessing tax which is not actually due. In short, the Motion fails to show that Our ruling must be set aside. ACCORDINGLY, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 27 February 2025), filed via registered mail on April 2, 2025, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MARIARO ustice WE CONCUR: On leave MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice CO~R~A~-N -G. F~ER~RE�R-~FLO~ES Associate Justice ,