Hedcor, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1867. December 6, 2019.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8964) HEDCOR, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION UY , J p : Records show that the instant Motion for Reconsideration 1 posted on September 2, 2019 and received by this Court September 6, 2019 was submitted for resolution on October 22, 2019 in view of the filing of respondent's " Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration) " on October 21, 2019. AaCTcI Subsequently on November 8, 2019 however, petitioner filed a " Reply (Re: Opposition dated October 18, 2019) ." In the interest of substantial justice, the same is hereby NOTED and will be considered in the resolution of petitioner's " MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ." In the said Motion, petitioner prays for reconsideration and setting aside of the Court's Decision dated August 7, 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. The Decision dated December 11, 2017 and the Resolution dated May 16, 2018 rendered by the Court in Division in CTA Case No. 8964, are hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. " In support of its Motion, petitioner argues that: 1. The Petition for Review was filed within the mandatory and jurisdictional period; 2. The retroactive application of RMC 54-2014 resulted in the deprivation of petitioner's due process when the procedure for processing of its administrative claims was changed during the pendency of the claims; 3. Respondent continued to have jurisdiction to act on petitioner's administrative claim for tax refund/credit after the lapse of the 120+30-day period, as confirmed by Revenue Regulations No. 1-2017. In his Comment, respondent counter-argues that: 1. The arguments raised by petitioner have already been conclusively passed upon and considered by the Court in its decision. 2. Petitioner's contention that respondent continued to have jurisdiction to act on its claim for tax refund/credit after the lapse of the 120+30-day periods as confirmed by RR No. 1-2017 is bereft of merit. 3. Partaking of the nature of tax exemptions, claims for refund are strictly construed against the claimant and cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. In its Reply, petitioner maintains that: 1. Petitioner's judicial claim for refund was filed within the mandatory and jurisdictional period. 2. Respondent continued to have jurisdiction to act on petitioner's administrative claim for tax refund/credit after the lapse of the 120+30-day period if no decision had been rendered. THE COURT EN BANC 'S RULING Petitioner's Motion lacks merit. EcTCAD After a careful examination and consideration of the allegations in petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, it is noted that the arguments raised therein are mere reiterations of matters which have already been thoroughly considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision. Thus, We shall not 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, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 144 to 158.