Requirement to Prominently Display Notices on Entitlement of Senior Citizens to a 20% Percent Discount and Exemption from VAT

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 7131. March 27, 2013.] REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION (as surviving corporation in a merger involving FR CEMENT CORPORATION) , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION BAUTISTA , J p : This resolves the "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated 25 January 2013)" filed by respondent, with "Opposition [To Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated February 18, 2013]" filed by petitioner on March 18, 2013. ECTAHc The fallo of the assailed Decision dated January 25, 2013, reads as follows: WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand dated March 30, 2004, with attached Details of Discrepancies, and Assessment Notice No. FVT-00-00036, Assessment Notice No. WC-00-00021, Assessment Notice No. FWT-00-00035, and Assessment Notice No. FBT-00-00074, all received on March 31, 2004, are hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE . SO ORDERED . In her Motion for Reconsideration, respondent submits that the Court erred in cancelling and setting aside the assessments for taxable year 2000 in the aggregate amount of P732,991,997.19, on the following grounds: that the waivers executed by the parties are complete, valid and enforceable; that the government's cause of action against the withholding agent is not for the collection of income tax, but for the enforcement of the withholding tax provision of Section 53 of the Tax Code; and that there was no full compliance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9480. On the other hand, in its Opposition, petitioner counters, inter alia , that the motion is nothing more than a pro forma ; that the waivers are not valid for failure to comply with the requisites and formalities; and that it cannot be accountable, much less estopped from raising the issue of prescription. Upon careful study of the parties' respective arguments, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the challenged Decision dated January 25, 2013, considering that the issues raised have been thoroughly discussed and passed upon thereof. In not a few instances did the Supreme Court underscore the mandatory nature of procedure for the proper execution of the waiver. With this, respondent cannot conveniently invoke the doctrine of estoppels to cover its failure to comply with Revenue Memorandum Order No. 20-90, which itself issued. 1 WHEREFORE , the "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated 25 January 2013)" filed by respondent is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. EDHCSI SO ORDERED . (SGD.) LOVELL R. BAUTISTA Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, J., concurs. Footnotes 1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kudos Metal Corporation , G.R. No. 178087, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 232.