COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COLT COMMERCIAL, INC.,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC CTA EB NO. 2006 (CTA CASE N O. 9270) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, -versus- COLT COMMERCIAL, INC., CTA EB NO. 2012 Respondent. (CTA CASE NO. 9270) x----------------------------------------------x COLT COMMERCIAL, INC., Petitioner, -versus- Present: Del Rosario, P.J. , Castaneda, Jr., Uy, Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, and Modesto-San Pedro, ]] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, .JAN 1 9 2021 ~ Respondent. x-- -------------------- - ----- -- -- - - - ---- ----------- - ----------- - ------- --- - --- - ----- -- - - - --- ~ - --- - ---x 0/?'�-~� RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J : For resolutio n is the Commissio ner o f Internal Revenue (CIR)'s "Motion for Reconsideration" 1 filed o n Sep tember 2, 2020, with Colt Commercial Inc.'s "Comment to Petitioner's Ivfo tio n for Reconsideration dated 1 Sep tember 2020 ,"~ filed via registered mail on O ctober 23, 2020. In the instant motion, the CIR avers that the Court En Bam: 1) erred in affirming the ruling o f the Court in Division that respondent Colt Commercial, /V 1 Rollo, CTA EB NOS. 2006 & 201 2, pp. 95-104. 2 Ib id., pp. 108-114.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NOS. 2006 & 2012 (CTA CASE NO. 9270) Inc. is entitled to refund on the alleged unutilized input taxes attributable to its zero-rated sales for the third quarter of taxable year 2013; 2) erred in ruling that respondent's input tax in the amount of P583,863.63 is directly attributable to the alleged zero-rated sales; and 3) that there was no determination on the part of the Court that the input tax subject of the claim for refund were directly attributable to the zero-rated sale. On the other hand, Colt Commercial, Inc. argues that the Court En Bane correctly cited the report of the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) that the input Value-Added Tax (VAT) of Colt Commercial, Inc. remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in its Quarterly VAT Return for the second quarter of Taxable Year (TY) 2015; that that Court En Bane went all through the documents and evidence and determined that Colt Commercial Inc. is entitled to refund or tax credit of input tax due or paid attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; and that the arguments raised by petitioner in the instant motion for reconsideration should not be given due course. After consideration, the Court En Bane resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration." The Court En Bane reviewed the grounds relied upon by the CIR in support of his motion but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The Court notes that the CIR's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in his Petition for Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision dated June 29, 2020. It must be stressed that among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the Court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to law or the evidence.3 If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration must necessarily fail. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it needless to reiterate the discussions made in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the CIR's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (/N. ~ /.1-z__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 3 Teodulo M. Coquifla vs. The Han. Commission on Elections and Mr. Neil M. Alvarez, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002.

Page 3 of3 RESOLUTION CTA EB NOS. 2006 & 2012 (CTA CASE NO. 9270) WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ERL~P.UY Associate Justice JR. ~t; c..~~.,~ ,$7.:.' JUXNITO C. CASTANEDA, Associate Justice . ~ /l'~T~ JEAN 1v�~~n, Dft\...vRRO-VILLENA CKrHERINE T. MA Associate Justice MARIA PEDRO