COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CE CASECNAN WATER AND ENERGY COMPANY, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO . 1265 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8620) Petitioner, Present: Del Rosario, P.J ., -versus- Castaneda, Jr., Bautista , Uy, Casanova, Fabon-Victorino , Mindaro -Grulla, Cotangco-Manalastas , and Ringpis-Liban, JJ. CE CASECNAN WATER AND Promulgated: ENERGY COMPANY, INC., Respondent. J Ul 0 1 2016 , .,., � ~~ ~- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS ,~: Submitted ror the consideration or this Court ts petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated On <January 14, 2016)1, filed by registered mail on February 9, 2016. Petitioner prays for reconsideration of the Decision2 of the Court En Bane dated January 14, 2016, which dismissed ror lack or merit her Petition ror Review riled berore this Court, and set aside the order to refund or to issue a Tax Credit Certillcate (TCC) in ravor or respondent issued by the CTA First. Division in CTA Case No. 8620. In her Motion for Reconsideration, pctltloncr maintains that by respondent's failure to submit complete documents in support or its application ror input VAT refund, respondentV I Rollo , pp. 177- 18 1. 2 Rollo, pp. t6 5- 17 1.

RESOLUTION Page 2 of 3 CTA EB Case No. 1265 (CTA Case No. 8620) CIR vs. CE Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc. effectively failed to discharge its burden of proof to establish its right to refund. Petitioner insists that: liJ the 28 documents submitted during the administrative claim arc not the complete documents intended by respondent, thus, the submission of complete documents contemplated under Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (1997 Tax Code) was not complied with; and fiil the submission of complete documents must first be complied with before the taxpayer could avail of judicial remedies as provided for in the law. On the other hand, respondent emphasizes that the grounds relied upon by petitioner in her Motion for Reconsideration are mere reiterations of the arguments raised in her Petition for Review which have already been carefully considered and resolved by both the Court En Bane and CTA First Division. Further, respondent submits that: laJ it submitted complete documents in support of its administrative claim for refund; lbJ respondent has the prerogative to determine the documents to be submitted in support of its administrative claim for refund; and lcJ judicial claims for refund, which arc litigated de novo, should be decided on the basis of documents offered in evidence. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration must fail. All the grounds and arguments relied upon by petitioner have been correctly and sufficiently. discussed and resolved both in the CTA First Division's Decision, and in the Court En Bane's Decision. Quoted below is the discussion in the challenged Decision3 of this Court relevant to the issue on submission of complete documents, viz: "It has been held that the determination of what arc "complete documents" lies with the taxpayer. In the instant case, respondent submitted its supporting documents with its administrative claim. Petitioner did not make any request for additional documents. Thus, the running of the 120-day period commenced and continued to run from the date respondent filed its administrative claim for refund together with the said 28 classes of supporting documents." In light of the foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason V to reverse or modify the January 14, 2016 Dedsion, which affirmed the September 16, 2014 Decision and December 18, 3 Supra, Note 2.

RESOLUTION Page 3 of 3 CTA EI3 Case No. 1265 (CTA Case No. 8620) CIN us. CE Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc. 2014 Resolution of the CTA First Division. Any further discussion will only be unnecessarily repetitive. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration {Re: Decision Promulgated On January 74) 20 76)4 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~rrI-- [.. :�{..-.--J/- AME~R.COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding lJ usticc c. ~-.c.c.~ ~'=4. Q_ LOVELL (sAUTISTA Associate Justice Jm\NITO C. CASTANEfi1\~ JR. Associate Justice {On official business) CAESAR A. CASANOVA ERL~P.UY Associate <J usticc Associate <Justice {On wellness leave) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice {On official business) CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate <J usticc --� ~. ~ ~ MA. BELEN RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate <Justice 4 Supra, Note 1.