APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Fonn No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 11111 11111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 18-000456-0086 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 9952 APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS CO., INC., Petitioner, - versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENE RAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. LIEZL G. BOHOL Bureau of Internal Revenue - Revenue Region No. 78 25th Floor, Lega l Di vis ion, The Podium Tower ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong City I FURUNG LAW OFFICES Unit 1902-A East T ower. Tektite Building Exchange Road, 011igas Center 1605 Pasig City GREETIN GS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on November 15, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Phi lippines, November 18, 2024. Atty. Marg ette Y. Guz an Executive lerk of Court I I Page I of I

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS CTA Case No. 9952 CO., ,INC., Members: Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO, Pr Chairperson, MANAHAN, and - versus - REYES-FAJARDO, 1L. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: Respondent. X----------------------------------- RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: For the Court's resolution is respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration1 of the Decision promulgated on May 23, 2024 (Assailed Decision), where the Court cancelled the deficiency value-added tax assessment of petitioner Applied Food Ingredients Co., Inc. relative to taxable year 2010 for being barred by prescription and being violative of petitioner's right to due process. Here, the CIR harps on the same issues already passed upon by the Court, viz.: whether its failure to consider petitioner's reply to the Preliminary Assessment Notice amounted to a due process violation and whether its right to assess petitioner for deficiency VAT already prescribed. When the IIarguments, citations, and premises [raised in a motion for reconsideration are] a rehash of the [party's] previous position," and have been 11considered, squarely addressed, and found to -be without merit" in the decision sought to be 1 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 882-888.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9952 Page 2 of2 reconsidered, "the Court is not inclined to embark on another extended discussion of the same issue[s] again.z In the absence of any substantial argument in support of the instant motion, there is no reason for the Court to reverse or modify the Assailed Decision.3 Any further discourse will only be unnecessary and repetitive.4 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, respondent CIR's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on May 23,2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ ~f.~-r~�~ WE CONCUR: MARIAN I(/Y F. RiJrES-FA'JARDO Associate Justice ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice C~' T-.dt4 u~L.-- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 2 Roque, Jr. v. Commission 011 Elections, G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), [February 10, 2010], 626 PHIL 75-92 3 In Shmzgri-ln IIItemntional Hotel Mnnagenzeiit, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., (G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007, 541 PHIL 138-143), the Supreme Court explained, "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action." (Emphasis supplied.) 4 Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers, et al. v. Lim, G.R Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10,2015. Also, in Roque, Jr. v. Commission 011 Electioiis, (G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10, 2010, 626 PHIL 75-92), the Supreme Court held, "[The argument raised in the motion] is a rehash of their previous position articulated in their memorandum in support of their petition. They have been considered, squarely addressed, and found to be without merit in the Decision subject hereof. The Court is not inclined to embark on another extended discussion of the same issue again."