Lapanday Foods Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2175. June 10, 2021.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9950) LAPANDAY FOODS CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION MANAHAN , J p : This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 07 December 2020 1 filed by petitioner Lapanday Foods Corporation (LFC) on December 29, 2020. Petitioner assails the Decision 2 dated December 7, 2020 which affirmed the denial of LFC's claims for refund/tax credit certificate (TCC) arising from unutilized input taxes attributable to zero-rated sales for the 1st quarter of 2006. The dispositive portion states: WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated August 8, 2019 and October 14, 2019 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. In its Motion , LFC argues that it timely filed its claim for refund/TCC, emphasizing that in case of an adverse decision on its claim for refund/TCC, a taxpayer still has thirty (30) days from receipt of the denial within which to appeal to the CTA. The disquisition of petitioner revolved around the same main argument, i.e. , it is entitled to appeal the denial to the CTA, buttressed with detailed legislative history of Section 112 of the Tax Code, jurisprudence on statutory construction and the like. After further review of petitioner's arguments, the Court finds no compelling reason to modify or reverse the assailed Decision, which are founded on solid statutory and jurisprudential bases, namely: Section 112 of the Tax Code, Sec. 7.a.2 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, and Supreme Court ruling in Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue . 3 The Supreme Court ruled, 4 to wit : Concerning the first ground abovecited, the Court notes that the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to the Court and found to be without merit . Petitioner fails to raise any new and substantial arguments, and no cogent reason exists to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's Resolution. It would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself . (Emphasis supplied) This Court need not tackle rehash or reiterated appeal. acEHCD WHEREFORE , the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 07 December 2020 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 111-130. 2. Rollo , pp. 97-107. 3. G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015. 4. Madeleine Mendoza-Ong v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines , G.R. Nos. 146368-89, October 18, 2004.