CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Fonn No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 11111 11111 1111111111111111111111111 11111 111111111111111111 19-000513-0082 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NOS. 10194 & 10228 CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Vi ll age Makati City ATTY. FELIX PAUL R. VELASCO ATTY. SYLVIA R. ALMA JOSE ATTY. AYESHA HANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG ATTY. MICHAEL KEVIN P. SAVONA Bureau of Internal Revenue Litigation Division, Room 703, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. De fensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City MARTINEZ VERGARA & GONZALEZ SOCLEDAD (MVGS LAW) 33rd Floor, The Orient Square F. Ottigas Jr. Road, Ortigas Center Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on July 17, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, July 18, 2024. Atty. Mar Executiv

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CF SHARP CREW CTA Case Nos. 10194 & 10228 Members: MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, - versus - DEL ROSARIO, PJ, Chairperson, MANAHAN, and REYES-FAJARDO, lL COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REYES-FAJARDO,]. : For the Court's resolution is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Partial Reconsideration1 of the Decision promulgated on January 5, 2024. In the Assailed Decision, the Court granted CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc. (CF Sharp)'s claim for refund to the extent of Pll,542.16, representing its unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the second, third, and fourth quarters of CY 2017. On February 26, 2024, CF Sharp filed its Comment/Opposition2 to the present motion. In this motion, the CIR raises the same arguments on CF Sharp's supposed failure to substantiate its administrative claim for refund and its non-entitlement even to a partial refund. The Court already passed upon these issues in the Assailed Decision. We held that all evidence presented to support a judicial claim, even those not presented at the administrative level, may be considered by the Court; after thorough evaluation of the evidence submitted, We determined that CF Sharp is entitled to a partial refund. 1 Docket (CTA Case No. 10194)- Vol. 2, pp. 926-936. 2 Docket (CTA Case No. 10194) - Vol. 2, pp. 939-944.

RESOLUTION CIA Case No. 10194 & 10228 In the absence of any substantial argument in support of the instant motion, there is no reason for the Court to reverse or modify the Assailed Decision.3 Any further discourse will only be unnecessary and repetitive.4 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on January 5, 2024 rs DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ ~r:~-Faj~ MARIAN IV~F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice c~� 7. .. 4<~~./..~-- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 3 In 5/wngri-la International Hotel Managemwt, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., (G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007, 541 PHIL 138-143), the Supreme Court explained, "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movanes 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 reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action." (Emphasis supplied.) 4 Social Justice Society (S JS) Officers, et al. v. Lim, G.R Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10,2015. Also, in Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, (G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10, 2010, 626 PHIL 75-92), the Supreme Court held, "[The argument raised in the motion] is a rehash of their previous position articulated in their memorandum in support of their petition. They have been considered, squarely addressed, and found to be without merit in the Decision subject hereof. The Court is not inclined to embark on another extended discussion of the same issue again."