Solid-One Mills, Phils., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1234. December 9, 2016.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8507) SOLID-ONE MILLS, PHILS.,INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1235. December 9, 2016.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8507) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. SOLID-ONE MILLS, PHILS.,INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION FABON-VICTORINO , J p : Before the Court En Banc is the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 10 August 2016) 1 filed by Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on September 13, 2016, assailing the Decision 2 promulgated on August 10, 2016, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE ,the Petitions for Review filed on October 31, 2014 and November 3, 2014 by Solid-One Mills, Phils.,Inc. and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respectively, are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision and Resolution dated May 29, 2014 and September 23, 2014, respectively, are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. The assailed Decision sustained the ruling of the Court in Division ordering the cancellation of the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Final Assessment Notices (FAN) No. 59/2003 dated May 31, 2007, assessing Solid-One Mills, Phils.,Inc. (SMPI) for alleged deficiency value-added tax (VAT),expanded withholding tax (EWT) and compromise penalties for taxable year 2003, in the total amount of P12,800,114.98, as well as the Notice of Tax Lien, the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL),and the Warrants of Garnishment, all dated June 7, 2012. As grounds for his motion ,the CIR asserts that: I. The Honorable Court erred in ruling that the right of petitioner (CIR) to enforce collection had prescribed. DHITCc II. The running of the prescriptive period for collection was suspended when respondent (SMPI) requested for reinvestigation and filed a protest with the petitioner. III. Withholding tax assessments, being penalties and not taxes, are not covered by the period of limitation prescribed in Section 203 of the NIRC. On the ground that: (1) the motion is pro forma being a mere reiteration of CIR's arguments in his previous pleadings filed with the Court; and (2) that no new or substantial arguments were raised in the CIR's motion ,petitioner SMPI prays for the denial of the motion. It is so patent that all issues raised in the motion have already been determined and passed upon, first by the Court in Division and subsequently on appeal by the Court En Banc .There are no substantial arguments raised to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE ,the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby DENIED ,for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J.,Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ. ,concur. Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr. and Lovell R. Bautista, JJ. ,are on leave. Footnotes 1. En Banc docket, pp. 123-133. 2. En Banc docket, pp. 98-119.