Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Colt Commercial, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2006. January 19, 2021.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9270) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. COLT COMMERCIAL, INC. , respondent . [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2012. January 19, 2021.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9270) COLT COMMERCIAL, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s "Motion for Reconsideration" 1 filed on September 2, 2020, with Colt Commercial, Inc.'s "Comment to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 September 2020," 2 filed via registered mail on October 23, 2020. In the instant motion, the CIR avers that the Court En Banc 1) erred in affirming the ruling of the Court in Division that respondent Colt Commercial, Inc. is entitled to refund on the alleged unutilized input taxes attributable to its zero-rated sales for the third quarter of taxable year 2013; 2) erred in ruling that respondent's input tax in the amount of P583,863.63 is directly attributable to the alleged zero-rated sales; and 3) that there was no determination on the part of the Court that the input tax subject of the claim for refund were directly attributable to the zero-rated sale. On the other hand, Colt Commercial, Inc. argues that the Court En Banc correctly cited the report of the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) that the input Value-Added Tax (VAT) of Colt Commercial, Inc. remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in its Quarterly VAT Return for the second quarter of Taxable Year (TY) 2015; that that Court En Banc went all through the documents and evidence and determined that Colt Commercial, Inc. is entitled to refund or tax credit of input tax due or paid attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; and that the arguments raised by petitioner in the instant motion for reconsideration should not be given due course. After consideration, the Court En Banc resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration." The Court En Banc reviewed the grounds relied upon by the CIR in support of his motion but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The Court notes that the CIR's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in his Petition for Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Banc in the assailed Decision dated June 29, 2020. It must be stressed that among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the Court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to law or the evidence. 3 If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration must necessarily fail. HEITAD In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it needless to reiterate the discussions made in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the CIR's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , CTA EB NOS. 2006 & 2012, pp. 95-104. 2. Ibid. , pp. 108-114. 3. Teodulo M. Coquilla vs. The Hon. Commission on Elections and Mr. Neil M. Alvarez , G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002.