COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB No. 1334 INTERNAL REVENUE (CTA Case Nos. 8553 & Petitioner, 8562) Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, PJ; CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN, JJ. PHI LEX MINING Promulgated: CORPORATION Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION Fabon-Victorino, J.: Before the Court En Bane is the Motion for Reconsideration1 filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue on November 16, 2016, assailing the Decision2 promulgated on October 19, 2016, the dispositive portion of which reads: / "WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on August 5, 2015, is hereby 1 En Bane docket, pp. 103-112. 2 Ibid., pp. 85-98.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1334 DENIED, for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision and Resolution dated March 31, 2015 and June 24, 2015, respectively promulgated by Court in Division in CTA Case Nos. 8553 & 8562, are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." The assailed Decision sustained the ruling of the Court in Division partially granting respondent's claim for refund of its unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) paid on purchases of goods and services attributable to zero-rated sales during the second and third quarters of 2010 in the amount of P51,734,898.99. Petitioner anchored its plea for reconsideration on the following grounds: I. The Honorable Court erred in ruling that the judicial claim for refund is timely filed because the filing of the said judicial claim for refund is premature; and II. The Honorable Court erred in partially granting the claim despite the fact that petitioner failed to comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements. By way of Opposition/Comment3, respondent argues that petitioner's motion failed to raise new matters or issues which were not determined and passed upon by the Court in the assailed Decision. Indeed, there is nothing in petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration that has not been addressed and passed upon by the Court En Bane. Petitioner failed to raise any substantial arguments to warrant a reversal or even modification of the assailed Decision of October 19, 2016. All the arguments invoked are mere reiteration of petitioner's previously filed pleadings. / 3 En Bane docket, pp. 114-115.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1334 WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue on November 16, 2016 is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. We Concur: ROMAN G. D L ROSARIO Presiding Justice a c. a-.u~ Q.qt--o..--4~ . g_ . LOVELL {BAUTISTA Associate Justice fUANITO C. CASTANE[{�( ,JR. Associate Justice CAESAR~ASANOVA Associate Justice � ~- ~ ~-~ AsEsoRL~~i~.stiUcYe MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN CULt tJ .l1~~ ~0.,JL Associate Justice CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ~'J:/11~~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice