GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION PTE LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE CTA CASE NO. 8437 INVESTMENT CORPORATION PTE LTD., Petitioner, -versus- Members: Castaneda, Jr., Chairperson Casanova, and Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, DEC 0 1 2015 Respondent. }{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - }{ RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,~ : For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated August 27, 2015, filed through registered mail on September 14, 2015, and received on September 17, 2015. 1 Petitioner filed its Comment on October 20, 2015.2 Respondent seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, dated August 27, 2015, which disposed of the case, as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FORTY- r- EIGHT MILLION NINE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND FORTY-FIVE PESOS AND 74/100 (Pl48,910 ,045.74), representing erroneously withheld final tax."3 1 Docket, pp. 905-91 I. 2 Docket, pp. 929-937. 3 Docket, p. 902.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 8437 In its motion, respondent argues on the ground that claims for refund are construed strictly against the taxpayer and in favor of the government; and that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to the filing of the petition for review. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that respondent's grounds are mere restatements of respondent's arguments in the Memor,andum, and which have already been weighed, considered, and passed upon by the Court. Petitioner further argues that respondent's arguments have no basis considering that petitioner has correctly filed its administrative and judicial claim for refund in accordance with Section 229 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code. Finally, petitioner argues that the rule on strict interpretation of tax exemption status does not justify the unjust withholding by the respondent of taxes which were illegally and erroneously collected. Respondent raised no ground that merits a reversal or even a modification of the Court's Decision. As discussed therein, petitioner complied with and proved the two requisites in that: (a) the tax has been erroneously or illegally collected; and (b) the claim for refund was filed within two years from the date of payment of the tax. WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated August 27, 2015, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~/-~~~-- AMELIA R . COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CAES~ASANOVA Associate Justice ~~ C. d.:f-~c( ;<i_ JUANITO C. CASTAN:El5.A., JR. Associate Justice