COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA E B NO. 2039 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8992) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,JJ GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION, Promulgated: JAN 19 20~ Respondent. - - -X -~- X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 3:3!f/.lfto..� RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, 1.: This resolves Petitioner's "~ lotion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 29 September 2020)"1 (".Motion for Reconsideration") filed on October 20, 2020, with Respondent's "Comment/Opposition (to the CIR's Motion for Reconsideratio n dated 29 September 2020)" ("Comment") ftled on November 16, 2020, seeking to set aside the Decision2 promulgated on September 29, 2020 ("Assailed Decision"), and another one be rendered ordering Respondent to pay the deficiency tax assessments for taxable year 2008 amounting to an aggregate amount of Php506,028,228.24, as well as surcharge and interests. The dispositive portion of the 1\ ssailed Decision reads: "WHE REFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane on March 27, 2019 is DENIED for lack of merit. 1\ ccordingly, the October 29, 2018 ~ Rollo, pp. 86-103. 2 Id., pp. 69-81.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2039 (CTA case No. 8992) Amended Decision and March 11, 2019 Resolution in CTA Case No. 8992 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."3 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner claims that while there is no disputed assessment, the Court En Bane erred in ruling that the Court in Division properly assumed jurisdiction over Respondent's original petition for review. Petitioner also contends that even assuming that the present case falls under the scope of "other matters", the same is filed out of time. Lasdy, Petitioner maintains that the Court should not have declared the deficiency tax assessment as void for allegedly not containing a definite due payment, since Respondent is already estopped from questioning its validity. On the other hand, Respondent, in its Comment, states that the arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion are merely a rehash of his arguments, both before the Court En Bane and the Court in Division. Respondent additionally states that the Assailed Decision correcdy ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction to review collection proceedings, and such review may include a review of the validity of the assessment as well. Equally, Respondent indicates that the Petition for Review filed before the Court in Division was filed on time. Finally, Respondent submits that it is established by law and jurisprudence that a tax assessment is void for failure to specify a due date for payment. We find for Respondent. Petitioner's contentions are mere reiterations of the arguments he has raised in his "Petition for Review". Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, to discuss anew the explanation of the Court on these matters is superfluity. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 29 September 2020)" is DENIED for lack of merit. ~ 3 Id., p. 80.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2039 (CTA Case No. 8992) SO ORDERED. (j-,. ~ ,//~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~~c~~,J... ERL~P.UY Associate Justice jUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice ... (1~'7-/~ (With due re~rpe"afntain my I Opinion) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Dissenting Associate Justice JEAN M IE . BACORRO-VILLENA ociate Justice MARIARO