Joyfoods Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9364. April 10, 2019.] JOYFOODS CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION UY , J p : For resolution is respondent's "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Re: Decision dated November 12, 2018)" filed on December 3, 2018, praying for reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated November 12, 2018, the dispositive portion of which reads: " WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is GRANTED . Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE to petitioner in the amount of P7,750,000.00 , representing compromise penalties imposed without authority or wrongfully collected. SO ORDERED. " In the Resolution dated December 12, 2018, this Court directed petitioner to file Comment or Opposition to respondent's Motion for Reconsideration within a period of ten (10) days from notice. However, the Judicial Records Division of this Court issued Records Verification dated January 25, 2019, stating that petitioner failed to comment on the said Motion . However, subsequently on February 8, 2019, petitioner filed its Manifestation with Comment/Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration dated 03 December 2019 , praying for the following: (i) to deny the Motion for Reconsideration for being a pro-forma motion, (ii) to declare the Decision dated November 12, 2018 as final and executory, and (iii) to cause the entry of the said Decision in its books of judgments. In the interest of justice, the said Manifestation with Comment/Opposition is NOTED . In his Motion for Reconsideration , respondent argues that petitioner is not entitled to the refund of, or issuance of a tax credit certificate, in the amount of P7,750,000.00 allegedly representing penalties erroneously collected or imposed without authority for failure on petitioner's part to substantiate its claim for refund; that petitioner failed to comply with Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended; and that this Court has no jurisdiction over the case. THE COURT'S RULING The instant Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. A careful perusal of the Motion for Reconsideration shows that the arguments raised therein are mere reiterations of matters which have already been considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision. Hence, finding no compelling reason to reconsider, modify or reverse Our Decision, We shall no longer belabor in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, J. , concur.