AIR DRILLING ASSOCIATES PTE LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Fonn No.8 (For DCC) 11111111111111111111111111111111 11111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111 22-000376-0050 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY 1ST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 10944 AIR DRILLING ASSOCIATES PTE LTD., Petitioner, -versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. ALBERT C. ARPO N ATTY. CARL FITRI A. H USSIN ATTY. JONELLE ELLINE A. MAGALONG Bureau oflntemal Revenue-Revenue Region No. 8A 36th Floor, Legal Division, Export Bank Plaza Building Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., cor. Chino Roces Ave., Makati City AGAN MONTENEGRO MALASAGA & CO. 7th Floor, Electra House Building 115-117 Esteban St., Legazpi Village 1229 Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 7, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 8, 2025. Atty. Maria Jo'"~. Chan-Te Executive &erio(com1 II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION AIR DRILLING ASSOCIATES CTA CASE NO. 10944 PTE LTD. , Members: Petitioner, - versus - DEL ROSARIO , P.J., Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, _and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, MAY 07... 2025;~.'(X)~ Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - -){ RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: This resolves respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated December 18, 2024)1 filed via registered mail and electronic mail (e-mail) on January 7, 2025, with petitioner's Comment (To Respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration)2 filed via personal service on February 10, 2025, and via e-mail on February 11, 2025. Respondent seeks partial reconsideration of the Decision3 promulgated on December 18, 2024 (assailed Decision), the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED . Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND or ISSUE TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE to petitioner in the reduced amount of P1,812,278.91, representing its Docket, pp. 838- 847. 2 !d. at 852-857. 3 !d. at 796-831.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10944 Air Drilling Associates Pte Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the first quarter of taxable year 2020. SO ORDERED. In asking for a partial reconsideration, respondent requests the Court to review, re-evaluate, and reconsider the findings in the assailed Decision insofar as it partially granted petitioner's claim for refund in the reduced amount of 1'1,812,278.91, on the grounds that petitioner failed to establish and prove that all the requisites to be entitled to a refund were complied with. Allegedly, petitioner: (i) was unable to substantiate its claim for value-added tax (VAT) refund and/or tax credit; and (ii) is not engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. Respondent also claims that there is no excess or unutilized input VAT that can be the subject of petitioner's claim for refund/tax credit. In rejecting respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, petitioner counters that: (1) It is not required under Republic Act (RA) No. 95134 to be registered as a DOE5 and BOI6 accredited supplier to be entitled to VAT zero-rating on its sales to a Renewal Energy (RE) Developer; (2) It submitted the necessary DOE Certificate of Registration and DOE Endorsement Letter for all relevant renewable energy projects of Energy Development Corporation (EDC); (3) The term "zero-rated" is imprinted on its official receipts; and (4) It substantiated its input VAT paid/incurred during the first quarter of taxable year 2020, all of which are attributable to its VAT zero-rated sales. After reviewing the allegations in the Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the counter-arguments set forth by petitioner in its Comment, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from its ruling in the assailed Decision. The Motion for Partial Reconsideration has not raised any new or substantial grounds that would warrant a departure from the previous conclusion and finding of the Court. All arguments raised have been passed upon, amply discussed, and considered by the Court in the Decision sought to be reconsidered. Therefore, the Renewable Energy Act of2008. Department of Energy. Board of Investments.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10944 Air Drilling Associates Pte Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Court sees no reasonable ground to set aside or modify its determination on the merits of the case. As explained in Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Lim: 7 The grounds relied on being mere reiterations of the issues already passed upon by the Court, there is no need to "cut and paste" pertinent portions of the Decision or re-write the ponencia in accordance with the outline of the instant motion. As succinctly put by then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Orligas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco on the effect and disposition of a motion for reconsideration: The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or 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; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc. G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916 (Resolution), March 10,2015 [Per J. Perez, En Bane].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10944 Air Drilling Associates Pte Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x WHEREFORE, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated December 18, 2024) filed by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. kAA/IfhJ;f LANWEv8.'6m-"rlAVID Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (With due respe , reiterate m rssenting Opinion) ROMAN G.DEL ROSARIO Associate Justice