PETNET, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC ********* PETNET, INC., ~ Petitioner, CTA EB No. 1479 (CTA Case No. 9113) Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , CASTANEDA, JR., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL BAUTISTA, REVENUE, UY, Respondent. CASANOVA, FASON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN, JJ. Promulgated: JUN 13 2018 .<>?''�'_:_ x-----------------------------'-------------------x RESOLUTION UY, J.: For resolution is petitioner's " MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Re: Decision dated February 1, 2018]" filed on March 1, 2018, without respondent's comment despite due notice, praying for the reconsideration and reversal of Court En Bane's Decision dated February 1, 2018, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED."

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1479 (CTA Case No. 9113) Page 2 of3 In the Motion, petitioner argues that the value-added tax refund application was filed within the period prescribed by Section 112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Allegedly, the cases cited by this Court in its Decision are inapplicable in this case, and that this Court has jurisdiction over decisions issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. According to petitioner, the assailed Decision effectively deprives herein taxpayer of its right to exhaust administrative remedies. As mentioned earlier, respondent failed to file his Comment or Opposition to the instant motion. Hence, this resolution. THE COURT EN BANC'S RULING Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. After a careful examination and consideration of the said Motion for Reconsideration, it is noted that the arguments raised therein are mere reiterations of matters which have already been considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision dated February 1, 2018. Thus, We shall not belabor, in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ER~P.UY WE CONCUR: Assoc1ate Justice Presiding Justice ~O<AM�,~z;, c.~~~~;_ LOVAsEsLo~~:.tBeAJUusTtIicSeTA J~NITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1479 (CTA Case No. 9113) Page 3 of3 CAESAR A. CASANOVA ~. ~ .J'-' Associate Justice MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN ~r.O~tNt ."'� MMIN~D,AR~O~-RUcL~LA Associate Justice Associate Justice (On Official Business) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice