LAPANDAY FOODS CORPORATION (formerly merged with MALALAG VENTURES PLANTATION, INC.) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane LAPANDAY FOODS CTA EB NO. 2181 CORPORATION (forme rly merged {CTA Case No. 9976) with MALALAG VENTURES PLANTATION, INC.), Present: Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, -versus- MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, ~dUN 0 8 2021 ~ x ----------------------------------------------~-eSJJ_~~~~~~~------------------------~-~,:~l"- ' RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: Before this Court En Bane is pet itioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 2 1 Ju ly 2020), fi led on 24 September 2020,1 w ithout any opposition from respondent, as reso lved by this Court En Bane in its Resolution, dated 28 January 202 1.2 In th e Motion for Reco nsideration,3 petitioner a lleges that: 1. Section 112 (C) of the N ational Internal R evenue Code of 1997 ("Tax Code '') clearly provides two (2) options to the taxpayer- claimant on how to appeal the decision of respondent deny ing the c laim for refund/tax credit certificate; ,.(, 1 Records, pp. 12 1- 143. 2 /d. , p. 166. 3 /d. , pp. 122- 139.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2181 (CTA Case No_ 9976) Page 2 of3 2. The mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30-day period upheld in various Supreme Court decisions does not apply in cases where respondent issues a decision on the administrative claim for refund or tax credit certificates under Section 112 ofthe Tax Code; 3. The administrative claims filed by petitioner were exempt from the application of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 54-2014 as they were filed prior to its effectivity; 4. The history of the 120-day period illustrates that the provJston provides the taxpayer with the option to appeal pending the administrative claim before respondent, and that the taxpayer should not be faulted for awaiting on respondent's belated decision; 5. RA No. 10963, also known as the Tax Reformfor Acceleration and Inclusion Law ("TRAIN Law''), continues this trend and shows an unbroken line of legislative intent; and 6. Respondent is deemed estopped from claiming prescriptton considering that his office still acted on petitioner's administrative claim despite the lapse of the 120-day period. We deny the Motion for Reconsideration. The arguments raised therein are identical to those raised by petitioner in his Petition for Review filed before this Court En Bane. Consequently, these have already been sufficiently passed upon, discussed, and judiciously resolved in the Decision, dated 21 July 2020. The Motion for Reconsideration discloses no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions which this Court made in said Decision. Thus, nothing is left for this Court to do but to deny the same. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MARIARO v

RESOLliTION CTA EB NO. 2181 (CTA Case No_ 9976) Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice JtCfA--N--I~T�O$-<c:!._C.A~S~"T'A"N;.E6D.~AQfJR, . Associate Justice ER�.UY Associate Justice (/!-.-f. AvL-. / <..___ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 7 c~, ~W<-~....~-.d:.._..-- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice t" ~LVt<.J:�J-VILLENA