Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 10299. February 23, 2024.] GRAND UNION SUPERMARKET, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO , J p : For the Court's resolution is respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration [re: Decision dated 25 October 2023]" ("Motion"), filed via registered mail on December 1, 2023, with petitioner's "Comment/Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration dated 30 November 2023)" ("Comment"), filed on December 27, 2023. DETACa Respondent seeks the reversal of Our Decision, dated October 25, 2023 ("Assailed Decision"), which granted the Petition for Review in this case. He claims that (a) the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") cannot rule on issues not raised at the administrative level; and (b) the doctrine laid down by Fitness by Design, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 1 ("Fitness by Design") should be revisited as it is erroneously based on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dominador Menguito 2 ("Menguito") which supposedly involves significantly different facts. Meanwhile, petitioner, through its Comment, insists that (a) exceptions to the general prohibition on ruling on issues not raised at a lower level apply here; and (b) the assessments are void. The Motion must be denied. Regarding respondent's claims as to issues not raised at the administrative level, this Court is not convinced. None of the jurisprudence respondent cites to bolster its claim of estoppel is applicable here. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Entertainment Gallery, Inc. 3 involves the alleged non-receipt of an issuance, not a questioning of its validity. Meanwhile, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hon. Raul M. Gonzales, et al., 4 involves a failure to avail of both administrative and judicial remedies, while both Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Transitions Philippines Optical, Inc. 5 and Aguinaldo Industries Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al., 6 involve self-contradicting positions. They are thus not applicable here and do not contradict Our ruling. Neither can we give credence to respondent's contention that Fitness by Design should be revisited. First, We cannot simply and knowingly contradict a clear mandate by the Supreme Court it is not within Our authority to do so. Furthermore, the claim that Fitness by Design is "based mainly" on Menguito is misplaced. The Supreme Court discusses various provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended , and various Revenue Regulations. Menguito is invoked in only seven of the 147 footnotes across the entire Decision. As such, We cannot agree with respondent's mischaracterization of the doctrine. Our ruling thus stands. HEITAD ACCORDINGLY , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [re: Decision dated 25 October 2023] is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated October 25, 2023, is hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. G.R. No. 215957, November 9, 2016. 2. G.R. No. 167560, September 17, 2008. 3. G.R. No. 225809, March 17, 2021. 4. G.R. No. 177279, October 13, 2010. 5. G.R. No. 227544, November 22, 2017. 6. G.R. No. L-29790, February 25, 1982.