PANAY POWER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) l lllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllll llll llllllllllllllll 21 -000147-0047 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10499 PANAY POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. AYESHA BANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG ATTY. BRYAN ANTHONY C. DIEGO Bureau oflnternal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City LAYUG CELICIOUS-SY & VILLAPANDO Unit 503, 5th Floor, The Linden Suites 37 San Miguel Avenue, Ortigas Center 1600 Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on April 16, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, April18, 2024. AttyE. MxeacuritiavJe~~~ our. tCbaIIn-Te
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION PANAY POWER CTA Case No.10499 CORPORATION, Members: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, Petitioner, MANAHAN, and - versus - REYES-FAJARDO, Il COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: Respondent. APR 16 2024 'j.'?J()Pftll x------------------------------- ~ <:- ~------------x RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: For the Court's resolution is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Partial Reconsiderationl of the Decision promulgated on October 16, 2023. In the Assailed Decision, the Court granted Panay Power Corporation (Panay Power) a partial refund or credit amounting to P10,844,787.06, representing excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes (CWT) relative to taxable year 2018. The instant Motion for Partial Reconsideration is anchored on the sole argument that Panay Power is not entitled to the refund or credit sought on account of its failure to prove that the alleged taxes withheld was remitted ultimately to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) . In its Comment/Opposition 2 to the present motion, Panay Power points out that the CIR's arguments are a mere rehash of those in its Answer and Memorandum. Furthermore, the fact of withholding and remittance of excess and unutilized CWT was established through the submission of BIR Forms No. 2307. 1 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 615-620. 2 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 623-631.
RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10499 On January 16, 2024, the CIR's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with Panay Power's Comment/ Opposition, was submitted for resolution. After a careful review of the records of the present case, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the Assailed Decision. The instant motion raises the same arguments already passed upon and discussed at length by the Court. The CIR has not adduced any substantial argument to warrant reconsideration or modification of the Assailed Decision.3It is already settled that if the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration are mere reiterations of those which have already been passed upon and, in fact, adjudged as unmeritorious by the Court, these cannot be regarded as substantial and no longer require another full-blown discussion. 4 Any further discourse will only be unnecessary and repetitive.5 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the CIR' s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on October 16, 2023 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ 9M f.~ -fa;tt-J. MARIAN IVIJ.. REY~-;AJARDO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: 7 ~ ~~c�...,.,.,..,[.e,.._ _ _ _ __ Presiding Justice CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 3 Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. , G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007, 541 PHIL 138-143. 4 Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10, 2010, 626 PHIL 75-92. 5 Social Justice Societt; Officers v. Lim, G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916 (Resolution), March 10, 2015, 755 PHIL 323-335.
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.