Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NOS. 7986 & 8028. August 15, 2013.] COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION CASANOVA , J p : This resolves petitioner-Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed on July 3, 2013, and respondent-Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Comment 2 filed on July 23, 2013. TSHIDa Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision 3 (the "Assailed Decision") promulgated on June 14, 2013, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, petitioner's Petitions for Review are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED ." In this motion, petitioner raised the following grounds for reconsideration of this Court: 1. The underdeclared input taxes in the VAT returns for the quarters ended September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2007 amounting to P60,420,422.20 and P112,341,092.68 respectively or a total of P172,761,514.88 represent understatement of input taxes that resulted to erroneous payment of output tax for the quarters ended September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2007. 2. The substantiated undeclared input tax for the third and fourth quarters of 2007 in the total amount of P53,783,208.31 is not required to be reported in the Quarterly VAT returns of the petitioner for the said quarters to be able to claim for refund of tax erroneously paid under Section 204 (C) in relation to Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. 3. The petitioner's claim for refund due to erroneous payment of output tax should be governed by Section 204 (C) in relation to Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Hence, the taxpayer must prove only the undeclared input tax that directly resulted to erroneous payment of output tax. Respondent, on the other hand, counterargues that petitioner failed to specifically point out which portion of the Decision is legally infirm as required by Section 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, respondent added that, this Honorable Court had clearly dissected the facts and each finding was buttressed with the appropriate legal basis. Thus, no error can be attributed thereto. aTHCSE After a careful evaluation of the arguments and counterarguments of the parties, We find no valid or compelling reason to grant petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The motion does not raise any new, cogent or substantial ground to warrant reconsideration of Our Decision dated June 14, 2013. What the instant Motion for Reconsideration seeks is for this Court to view and appreciate the evidence in their own perspective of things, which unfortunately had already been considered and passed upon. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr. and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 633-646. 2. Ibid. , pp. 649-656. 3. Id. , pp. 607-632.