PHIL. GOLD PROCESSING & REFINING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City En Bane PHIL. GOLD PROCESSING & CTA EB No. 1121 REFINING CORPORATION, (CTA Case Nos. 8327 and 8328) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.j., CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, -versus- UY, CASANOVA, FABON -VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RINGPIS-LIBAN, LL. REVENUE, --- --# y Respondent. Promulg1UGd1 3 2015 X---- ------------ -- ------- ---- / C J :�0 ik_-.-h;, - .--X RESOLUTION CASANOVA, ] .: This resolves petit ioner's Motion for Reconsideration1, filed on May 4, 2015, with respon dent's Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration)2, filed on June 24, 2015, and petitioner's Motion to admit attached Reply, filed on July 10, 2015. The Cou rt hereby GRANTS petitioner's Motion and ADMIT Reply to respondent's Comment/ Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsiderati on). With respect to the subject Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner prayed for the fo llowing: 1. The Decision (Assailed Decision) dated March 31, 2015 be reversed and set aside, and a new one be issued reopening the_,. 1 En Bane Rollo (Vol. Il l), pp. 1214-1225. 2 En Bane Rollo (Vol. Ill), pp. 1229-1241.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1121 (CTA cases No. 8327 and 8328) Page 2 of4 consolidated cases and admitting the Judicial Affidavit and documents appended to the Motion to Reopen, filed on August 1, 2013; and, 2. After due proceedings, a Decision be issued granting petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized input value-added tax amounting to P417,437,165.27. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the Resolution promulgated on January 14, 2014 and the Decision promulgated on October 22, 2013. The Petition for Review filed by Phil. Gold Processing and Refining Corporation is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." In support of its Motion, petitioner argues that the re-opening of the instant cases allows a more thorough appreciation of the evidence by this Court, thus, resulting in the paramount interest of justice; that, petitioner already submitted complete documents to support its claim for refund; that, the denial of its claim for refund based on alleged improper documentation is erroneous; that, strict compliance with invoicing requirements is enjoined to prevent "double claiming" of input VAT on zero-rated sales and such scenario is not present in these cases; and, that petitioner's judicial claim for the 4th quarter of 2009 was timely filed. By way of comment/opposition, respondent claims that petitioner should have been ready with all the documents necessary to support its claim for refund when it filed the instant Petition for Review; that the Special Third Division correctly ruled that petitioner's judicial claim for the 41h quarter of fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 had already prescribed; and, that the Special Third Division correctly ruled that petitioner failed to meet the invoicing requirements for zero-rated sales. In its Reply, petitioner reiterates that the instant case should be re-opened in the interest of justice and fairness; that the resignation of petitioner's senior accountant and general accountant made it difficult to collect the documents appended in the Motion to Reopen during the trial; that the CTA Resolutions cited by respondent do not prevail over the Supreme Court Decisions that called for relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice and fairness; that petitioner's judicial claim for refund was timely filed; and, that the law does not require th~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1121 (CTA cases No. 8327 and 8328) submission of sales invoices in order that one may claim refund for unutilized input VAT. A perusal of the grounds raised by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration and Reply reveals that the same are practically mere reiterations of the arguments contained in its Motion to Re-open3 dated August 1, 2013, Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration4 dated November 21, 2013, Petition for Review5 dated February 27, 2014, and Memorandum6 dated November 20, 2014, which have been extensively discussed, resolved and settled in the Resolutions dated October 14, 2013 7 and January 14, 20148 of the CTA Special Third Division as well as in the Assailed Decision9 of the CTA Court En Bane dated March 31, 2015. To discuss them anew is superfluity. In view of the foregoing, We find no cogent justification to disturb the findings and conclusions spelled out in the March 31, 2015 CTA En Bane Decision. What the instant Motion for Reconsideration seeks is for the Court to view and appreciate the evidence in their own perspective of things, which unfortunately had already been considered and passed upon. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. CAESAR~ANOVA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice 3 Division Docket (Vol. Ill), pp. 1098-1103. 4 Division Docket (Vol. Ill), pp. 1215-1228. 5 En Bane Rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 6-31. 6 En Bane Rollo (Vol. Ill), pp. 1165-1187. 7 Annex "C" to the Petition for Review, En Bane Rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 59-65. 8 Annex "A" to the Petition for Review, En Bane Rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 33-41. 9 En Bane Rollo (Vol. Ill), pp. 1192-1207.

RESOLUTION R.~ISTA LOVELL CTA EB No. 1121 Associate Justice (CTA cases No. 8327 and 8328) sz_-...~ C.~~Q.. J{)ANITO C. CASTANEuK,JR. Associate Justice ER~P.UY Associate Justice ~N.Ma..~.G~ AMEoiLR;..'.c/o.T?AvN.~lA_N-A-L~AsTAs CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice Associate Justice 'P\9,, ~ ~ '-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice