COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COLT COMMERCIAL, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2086 REVENUE, {CTA Case No. 9539) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. Promulgated: COLT COMMERCIAL, INC., FEB 1 8 2021 Respondent. X ---------------------------------------------------------------------�------------------ RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (hereinafter referred to as "Motion"), filed on 2 September 2020, with respondent's Comment to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 September 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "Comment"), posted on 22 October 2020. In his Motion, petitioner moves for the reconsideration of the Court En Bane's Decision, promulgated on 21 July 2020, denying his Petition for Review for lack of merit. The dispositive portion provides: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Court in Division's Decision promulgated on 14 January 2019 and the Resolution dated 28 May 20 19 are hereby AFFIRMED. J) SO ORDERED."

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2086 (CTA Case No. 9539) In this case, petitioner argues that the Court En Bane erred in affirming the Decision and Resolution of the Court in Division. Petitioner explains that not only was the input tax sought to be refunded carried over by respondent in its subsequently filed value-added tax ("VAT") returns, but the said claimed amount also includes excess input tax from respondent's Ist to 2"ct quarters of 2014. Hence, he contends that these instances prove that the tax being claimed has already been applied against its output tax. Further, petitioner contends that respondent failed to prove that it had complied with the documentary requirements prescribed under Revenue Memorandum Order ("RMO'') No. 53-98 at the administrative level. On this basis, he points out that the herein case should be struck down since a judicial claim for refund is not an original action but an appeal of an unsuccessful administrative claim. As for respondent's judicial claim, petitioner posits that respondent failed to substantiate its claim since it was not able to comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements under the Tax Code and was unable to submit the Philippine Economic Zone Authority ("PEZA") and Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority ("SBMA") certificates of registration of its clients/customers. Lastly, he stresses that this case, being a tax refund case should be strictly construed against respondent. Hence, it has the burden of proving that it was able to satisfy its claim by presenting all the required documentary and evidentiary requirements. In its Comment, respondent belies the contention of petitioner. It explains that this Court was already able to prove that the claimed input tax was not applied against its output tax. Respondent argues that the assertions of petitioner is contrary to the findings of the Independent Certified Public Accountant ("ICPA") Sonny S. Bonilla that its excess input tax was not used on carry-over and that it is entitled to the input tax being claimed. Respondent also echoes the Court En Bane's findings that it complied with the invoicing and accounting requirements under the Tax Code and that its failure to present the PEZA and SBMA certificates of registration does not disqualify its claim for refund/credit since it was able to present, in lieu of said documents, the PEZA Confirmation Letters. J/

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2086 (CTA Case No. 9539) After a careful perusal of the foregoing arguments, the Court En Bane finds that the same are mere rehash of the matters raised in his Petition for Review, which the Court had exhaustively passed upon in the assailed Decision. Considering that petitioner failed to raise any matter worthy of this Court's attention, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to modify or reverse the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEI:' ROSARIO Presiding Justice Q...,._...4;C-~......,.~'~ . JiJ'ANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice ERL~P.UY Associate Justice ~.~ _/(..__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice /'~'7~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2086 (CTA Case No. 9539) JEANMA