VESTAS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANC VESTAS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, CTA E B N0. 1927 INC., (CTA Case No. 8877) Petitioner, Present: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CASTANEDA, JR., REVEN UE, UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Re sp o ndent. MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PE DRO,]]. RESOLUTION R I N GPI S-LIBA N , . � : This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 10 February 2020)"1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") flied on March 04, 2020, without Respondent's comment thereon. 2 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration prays for the following: 1) give due course to the same; 2) reverse the Decision3 promulgated on February 10, 2020 (".Assailed Decision"), the .August 03, 2017 Decision and .August 22,2018 Resolution both issued by the Court of Tax Appeals Second Division; Rollo, pp. 124-133. Records Verification Report dated Ja nuary 11, 2021 stating t hat Respondent did not file any comment to Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 10 February 2020)". 3 Rollo, pp. 103-119.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1927 (CTA Case No. 8877) 3) grant Petitioner's claim for refund and/or issuance of tax credit certificate in the aggregate amount of Php65,650,037.39, representing Petitioner's unutilized and/or unapplied input value-added tax ("VAT") for the period covering April 01, 2013 to September 30, 2013 attributable to its VAT zero-rated sale of services and lease of property; and 4) order Respondent to refund the above amount in favor of Petitioner. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review ftled on September 21, 2018 by petitioner Vestas Services Philippines, Inc. is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision and Resolution dated August 3, 2017 and August 15, 2018, respectively, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."4 Petitioner contends that Revenue Memorandum Circular ("RMC") No. 49-2003 is not a simple interpretative rule, but a legislative rule intended to provide or complete the missing details of Section 112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC") of 1997, as amended. As such, it is required to comply with notice and publication to be effective. Petitioner also asserts that assuming arguendo that RMC No. 49-2003 is valid notwithstanding the lack of publication, this court should consider the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue" in determining the timely filing of Petitioner's judicial claim for refund. The Court is not persuaded. Petitioner's contentions are mere reiterations of the arguments raised in its "Petition for Review". Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, to discuss anew the explanation of the Court on these matters is superfluity. 4 !d., p. 118. G.R. No. 207112, December 08, 2015.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1927 (CTA Case No. 8877) In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 10 February 2020)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (/:.sl. A-6- ,.4..-f_ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (On Oflicial Leave) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice Q~?;C~~J..� ERL~.UY Associate Justice JrfANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice ~';: ~.....+1."~4c___ _ JEAN Nll,_.un tfACbRRO-VILLENA \CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice