Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Freelife Philippines Distribution, Inc.-Philippine Branch

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1714. April 22, 2019.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8838) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. FREELIFE PHILIPPINES DISTRIBUTION, INC.,-PHILIPPINE BRANCH , respondent . RESOLUTION UY , J p : For resolution is petitioner's "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION" 1 filed on January 29, 2019, with respondent's "COMMENT" 2 filed on March 11, 2019, praying for the reversal and setting aside of this Court En Banc 's Decision dated January 4, 2019, the dispositive portion of which reads: " WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 27, 2017 and the Resolution dated August 29, 2017, both rendered by the Court in Division in CTA Case No. 8838, are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. " Petitioner's arguments: In his Motion for Reconsideration , petitioner argues that the Court En Banc committed error in declaring that petitioner failed to observe the due process requirement of the law. Allegedly, respondent was informed of the facts and the law on which the subject assessment was based. Thus, petitioner reiterates his position that the subject assessments have become final, executory and demandable due to the failure of the respondent to timely file the Petition for Review in accordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the Tax Code. Finally, petitioner reasserts that the Court in Division erred in not considering the merits of the case and declaring respondent not liable for the deficiency tax assessments. Respondent's counter-arguments In its Comment, respondent submit that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration failed to point out the Court En Banc 's findings or conclusions which are supposedly contrary to law; and that the instant motion should be treated as a pro forma motion which did not stay or suspend the reglementary period for filing a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. Respondent further argues that petitioner failed to observe the due process requirement in the issuance and service of the Formal Letter of Demand or Final Assessment Notice . And contrary to the arguments of petitioner, the subject assessments have allegedly not become final or unappealable and that its Petition for Review was seasonably filed. THE COURT EN BANC'S RULING Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. A careful perusal of the Motion for Reconsideration , as well as the Comment thereto, shows that the arguments raised in the said Motion are mere reiteration of matters which have already been considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision. Thus, 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 considerations, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Catherine T. Manahan, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. EB Docket, pp. 145 to 150. 2. EB Docket. pp. 154 to 164.