BERNHARD SCHULTE SHIPMANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL (PHILIPPINES) CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC BERNHARD SCHULTE Petitioner, CTA EB NO. 2694 SHIPMANAGEMENT (CTA Case No. 10847) INTERNATIONAL (PHILIPPINES) CORP., Present: - versus - Del Rosario, P.J., Ringpis-Liban, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes- Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles, JL COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: R_EVENUE, R eJponden!. x------------------------------------------------- - -------------------------- ~ ------------------x RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,b For resolution of the Court En Bane is petltloner Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagemcnt International (Philippines) Corp.'s Motion for Reconsideration' filed via accredited courier on July 7, 2023 and received by the Court on July 10, 20?3, with respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Comment (to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsiderationf filed on August 29, 2023. Petitio ner's Motion seeks reconsideration o f the Decision of the Court En Bane promulgated on June 19, 2023;' ("Assailed Decision") affirming the judgment of the Second Division ("Court in Division") of th.is Court in CTA Case No. 10847. The Assailed Decision denied the Petition for Review for lack o f merit. 1 Cou rt En Banes Docket, pp. 85-90 . 2 !d., pp. 104-106. 3 !d., pp. 56-70 .

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2694 (CTA Case No. 10847) Pag~ 2 of 4 In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner posits that Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation4 and the prior cases it sought to clarify primarily involved the two-year prescriptive period and not whether the 30-day period to appeal is extendible or not. According to petitioner, neither San Roque nor all the subsequent cases citing the same involved a taxpayer who timely flied a motion for extension of time to ftle a petition for review with the CTA within the mandatory 30-day period. Petitioner postulates that the filing of its motion for extension to file Petition for Review constitutes a timely invocation of this Court's jurisdiction and that this Court already acquired jurisdiction over this case upon the filing of its motion for extension of time to flle Petition for Review. Citing the case of SM Land, Inc. v. City ofMani!a,5 petitioner asserts that the power of the CTA Division to grant an extension is available not because of the CTA Law but because of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court which the CTA Law merely adopted as the governing mode of appeal. Petitioner also advances the theory that even if Section 112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended (1997 NIRC), is deemed mandatory and jurisdictional, it does not diminish the timeliness of the Petition for Review because the timely filing of the motion for extension of time to ftle the Petition for Review was the document that invoked this Court's jurisdiction within such 30-day period. Petitioner also postulates that Section 112(C) of the 1997 NIRC did not vest this Court with jurisdiction over appeals of adverse decisions of the respondent on claims for input VAT refund and that this Court's jurisdiction over such appeals was already given by virtue of Section 7 of RA 1125, as amended. On the other hand, respondent, in his Comment submits that the arguments raised by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration have already been passed upon by the Court in Division. After careful evaluation of the arguments raised by petitioner vis-a-vis the records of the case, the Court En Bane resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Petitioner merely recycled the arguments it raised in its Motion for Reconsideration as these matters had already been thoroughly discussed and resolved by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision. To put it blundy, there is nothing in the Motion for Reconsideration that was not sufficiendy passed upon by the Court En Bam: 4 G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113 & 197156, February 12, 2013 [Per J. Carpio, En Bane]. 5 G.R. No. 197151, October 22, 2012 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2694 (CTA Case No. 10847) At any rate, the Court En Bam� maintains its position that the denial of petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review before the Court in Division is justified due to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 30-day period under Section 112(C) of the 1997 NIRC, as applied to the present case. This Court cannot grant the additional period prayed for as the same already falls outside the 30-day period mandated by Section 112(C) of the 1997 NIRC. This Court's position as regards the collateral matters raised by petitioner in its j'vJotionfor Rewnsideration were already discussed in the Assailed Decision and the same need not be repeated here. In sum, petitioner failed to raise any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of this Court's findings in the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ROMAN G. DECROSARIO Presiding Justice av. .,t t._ "J '-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~-7-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice r

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2694 (CTA case No. 10847) ..~ (On Leav~) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice ~ Lf.~.Faf~ MARIAN IvY l/. REYE~FAJAiiDO Associate Justice AMiliA~/ LA:rJn:~~'cul-tlAVID z\ssociate Justicc s Associate Justice HENRJ/rJ:;;cEI.ES Associate Justice