Nippo Metal Tech Phils., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1273. October 18, 2016.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8329) NIPPO METAL TECH PHILS., INC. (formerly GLOBAL METAL TECH CORPORATION) , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION CASANOVA , J p : Before Us is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 17 May 2016), filed thru registered mail on June 16, 2016, with petitioner's Comment (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated 15 June 2016), filed on August 15, 2016. Respondent seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated May 17, 2016, the decretal portion of which reads as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Assailed Decision and Assailed Resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Accordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice with attached Audit Results/Assessment Notices dated February 17, 2009 is cancelled and declared WITHDRAWN . SO ORDERED. " Respondent anchors its Motion on the following grounds, viz. : "I. THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE FINAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE, WHICH WAS ALREADY FINAL AND EXECUTORY. II. THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF THE PROCESS TO PETITIONER." Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that respondent's failure to follow the procedures outlined in RR No. 12-99 constitutes a denial of taxpayer's right to due process; that, since it was denied due process when respondent issued the FLD/FAN prior to the lapse of the 15-day period given to the taxpayer to protest the PAN, the FLD/FAN should be considered as null and void, hence, the said assessment could not have become final, executory and demandable. cHDAIS After a second hard look at respondent's arguments in his Motion, We find no compelling reason to grant the same. The arguments raised by respondent had already been fully and exhaustively addressed in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE , finding no cogent or substantial ground to warrant reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated May 17, 2016, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 17 May 2016) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ. , concur. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , I maintain my Dissent. Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, J. , I concur with the Dissenting Opinion of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario.