DIGITAL SERVICES CAMBRIDGE LIMITED ROHQ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Fonn No.8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 11111 11111 1111111111111111111111111 11111 111111111111111111 22-000057-0054 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 10764 DIGITAL SERVICES CAMBRIDGE LIMITED ROHQ, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLIC ITO R GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. LARA NICOLET. GONZALES Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City SYCIP SALAZAR HERNANDEZ & CATMAITAN 3rd Floor, SyCiplaw Center 105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on August 1, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, August 5, 2025. .... Atty. Maria Jo~ Chan-Te Executive ~omi II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION DIGITAL SERVICES CTA CASE NO. 10764 CAMBRIDGE LIMITED ROHQ, Members: Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and -versus- CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, , , l61JJf! AUG -0-1~ 202~ 5 fr-'O-:;-!-17- ){- - - - - - - - - - Respondent. - - - - -){ -- -- --- - - -- -- RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before the Court is respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 26 February 2025) (Motion), filed on March 18, 2025, with petitioner's Comment/ Opposition To the Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 26 February 2025), filed on May 19, 2025. Respondent's Motion seeks partial reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated February 26, 2025 (assailed Decision), which partially granted petitioner's Petition for Review. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the reduced amount of P10,233,828.27, representing the latter's unutilized input VAT attributable v to its zero-rated sales for the period from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020. SO ORDERED.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10764 Digital Services Cambridge Limited ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In his Motion, respondent argues that the Court should have confined its judicial review to the same documents submitted at the administrative level. According to respondent, judicial review is not a trial de novo in the sense that a totally new first instance trial is conducted. Respondent then reiterates his findings that portions of the claimed input value-added tax (VAT) are supported by sales invoices without a valid authority to print (ATP) and that petitioner allegedly failed to comply with invoicing requirements. At the outset, it bears noting that the arguments raised in respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration are mere reiterations of issues that were already thoroughly considered, discussed, and resolved in the assailed Decision. It is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration containing mere reiterations or rehashes of grounds and arguments previously considered, weighed, and resolved by the court before the Decision sought to be reconsidered is rendered, does not require a new judicial determination. 1 Thus, there is no necessity to discuss and rule again on this ground since "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant."2 In Shangri-La International Hotel Management v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., 3 the Supreme Court emphasized that it is incumbent upon the movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions are contrary to law, as follows: 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 People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 (Resolution), January 7. 2013 [Per J. Del Castillo. Special First Division] citing Peopfe v. Larrahaga. G.R. Nos. 138874-75. July 21, 2005 [Per Curiam, En Bane]: :\1endoza-Ong v. Han Sandiganbayan. eta/.. G.R. Nos. 146368-69 (Resolution). October 18, 2004 [Per J. Quisumbing, Special Second Division]. People 1'. Agacer. G.R. No. 177751 (Resolution) . .lanu<try 7. 2013 [Per .1. Del Castillo. Special First Division] citing People v. Larrafiaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75. July 2 L 2005 [Per Curiam, En Bane] and Ortigas Land Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge l�"e/asco. G.R. No. 109645 (Resolution), March 4, 1996 [Per J. Narvasa, Third Division]. G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22.2007 [Per J. Garcia. First Division].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10764 Digital Services Cambridge Limited ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought. Thus, where the grounds raised have been sufficiently addressed in the decision, it is incumbent upon the movant to demonstrate that the Court's findings are contrary to law. In this case, respondent failed to raise any new, material, or persuasive argument to justify a reversal or modification of the Court's ruling. Accordingly, the Court reaffirms its findings and conclusions in the assailed Decision, including the ruling that the claim for refund is properly litigated de novo, and that after a judicious evaluation of the evidence presented, petitioner is entitled to a refund in the amount of !>10,233,828.27, representing unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales. WHEREFORE, finding no compelling reason to disturb the assailed Decision, respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 26 February 2025) 1s hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. huwJW LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice (With du respect, I reite ate my Dissenting Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presidiag Justice