RIOFIL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane RIOFIL CORPORATION, CTA EB N0.1984 Petitioner, {CTA Case No. 9344) Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: R esponden t. MAR 1 9 2021 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I------------------{-- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: Before this Court En Bane is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on 26 June 2020, 1 without any opposition from respondent, as shown by the Records Verification Report, dated 7 December 2020.2 In the Motion for Reconsideration,3 petitioner alleges that: I. The Honorable Court En Bane erred in holding that petitioner' s accumulated input tax carry-over from previous taxable quarters could not be credited against its output tax liabilities for year 2014; 2. The doctrine that a "tax refund partakes of the nature of a tax exemption which should be construed strictissimi juris against thef 1 Records, pp. 145- 162. 2 !d. , p. 166. 3 !d. , pp. 146-158.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1984 (CTA Case No. 9344) Page 2 of3 taxpayer" is an unreasonable restriction to the tax incentive allowing the refund or tax credit of input tax attributable to zero-rated sales; 3. In allowing the credit of input VAT against output VAT liabilities, there should be parity between regular VAT taxpayers and those whose sales are zero-rated; 4. The elements of a tax refund under Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code of1997 ("Tax Code'') are expanded due to the erroneous application of the doctrine of strictissimi juris in substantiating accumulated input taxes carried over; 5. The Court erred in applying the valid and substantiated excess input tax of Phpl7,648,467.72 for the year 2014 against petitioner's Php79,430,473.89 output tax liabilities for the same year. Petitioner's accumulated input tax carry-over was sufficiently proven; and 6. The Court erred in finding additional disallowance of input VAT amounting to Php 1,520,258.26. The input taxes subject ofthe refund have been properly substantiated. We deny the Motion for Reconsideration. The arguments raised therein are identical to those raised by petitioner in his Petition for Review filed before this Court En Bane. Consequently, these have already been sufficiently passed upon, discussed, and judiciously resolved in the Decision, dated 9 March 2020. The Motion for Reconsideration discloses no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions which this Court made in said Decision. Thus, nothing is left for this Court to do but to deny the same. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ustice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1984 (CTA Case No. 9344) Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: ON LEAVE ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice a-..~�t::c. ~ot..., Q. Jlli\NITO c. CASTANEDA,~: Associate Justice ER~.UY Associate Justice ~.~~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice t:'~ \__,. /t""""----"""".t.- - CATHERINE T. "ANAHAN Associate Justice JEAN lVIAKIJ:Vil \'-'UKKV-VILLENA ~ate Justictf