Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recovery of tax

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2015

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. GENEHARBOR (HONG KONG) TECHNOLOGIES LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. GENEHARBOR (HONG KONG) TECHNOLOGIES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC74/2015

The objection plea was barred by s75(4) and therefore not a valid defence. The conditional hold-over orders lapsed because the Tax Reserve Certificates were not purchased by the required date, nullifying the hold-overs under s71(7)(a) and making the assessed tax payable on the original due dates; s71(3) did not require the Commissioner to issue a fresh order in these circumstances. Judgment was therefore entered for the Commissioner.
16 Apr 2013

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHING YEUNG COLOUR PRINTING CO LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHING YEUNG COLOUR PRINTING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC2774/2012

Section 75(4) IRO precludes the court from entertaining pleas that the tax assessment is excessive or incorrect; the defendant's grounds (incorrect assessment, negotiations/legitimate expectation, hardship, constitutional challenge) fail or were not properly pleaded and the defence discloses no reasonable defence; judgment entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum with interest and costs.
1 Apr 2009

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SEA POWER INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SEA POWER INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC6943/2008

Section 75(4) precludes the court from entertaining pleas that the assessment is excessive, incorrect or under objection or appeal, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden under s.58(3) to show non-receipt of notices; therefore the pleaded defence disclosed no reasonable defence and was struck out and judgment entered for the Commissioner.
16 Nov 2007

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHIA TAI CONTI - HONG KONG LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHIA TAI CONTI - HONG KONG LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC9755/2006

The court entered summary judgment for the Plaintiff because the Commissioner’s certificate under s75(3) established the amount due and s75(4) precludes the Defendant from raising objections to the tax in these recovery proceedings; allegations of delay under s64(2) did not justify a stay and did not constitute a defence to recovery under s71 and s75.
26 Apr 2001

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Lau Chi Sing

Citation

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Lau Chi Sing
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ12121/2000

Because the defendant did not dispute that he was the person assessed, his pleaded allegations amounted to disputing the correctness of the assessment which is barred from being entertained in District Court by section 75(4) IRO; the narrow identity exception does not apply; therefore the Amended Defence disclosed no reasonable defence and must be struck out; judgment entered for the Commissioner for $451,237 with interest and costs.
20 Mar 2001

TAK WING INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

TAK WING INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2001

Judicial review cannot be used to obtain a stay of tax enforcement proceedings barred by the statutory scheme (s71(2) and s75(4)); however where there is an arguable complaint of unreasonable delay under s64(2) the appropriate remedy is mandamus and leave to apply for judicial review limited to that remedy should be granted.
25 Jan 1989

YAU FOOK HONG CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

YAU FOOK HONG CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1340/1988

The court extended the plaintiffs' time to file evidence and vacated and refixed the hearing date because plaintiffs failed to apply for an extension earlier and did not propose alternative dates when seeking to vacate; the defendant was given liberty to restore to apply under O.28 r.10 if plaintiffs failed to comply, reinforcing that dismissal is the appropriate remedy for failure to prosecute rather than forcing an unready hearing.
21 Sept 1988

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HONG KONG v. LAI YIN HA

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HONG KONG v. LAI YIN HA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV73/1988

Section 75(4) bars a defendant from relying on pleas that the tax is excessive or incorrectly assessed in proceedings to recover tax; the judge erred in treating an officer's in‑court admission as taking the case outside that prohibition. The correct exercise of discretion was to strike out the defence and enter judgment for the Commissioner; the statutory objection and appeal routes must be used to contest assessments.
16 Jan 1976

NG CHUN-KWAN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HONG KONG

Citation

NG CHUN-KWAN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV49/1975

The Court held that a defence asserting an assessment is a nullity or arbitrary is, in substance, a challenge to the correctness of the tax and is barred in recovery proceedings under s.75(4); objections to assessments must be pursued under the statutory objection and appeal procedure (Part XI); additionally, a bare plea of nullity or capriciousness without pleaded primary facts is insufficient, so the order striking out the defence was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HONG KONG v. BORNEO GREENLAND & CO LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HONG KONG v. BORNEO GREENLAND & CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5485/1976

Section 75(2) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance constitutes an express statutory code for recovery of tax and, applying the principle that where legislation prescribes the mode and forum for recovery no other mode is permissible, the court held that tax recoverable under the Ordinance is recoverable in the District Court only; accordingly the Small Claims Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over tax arrears governed by s.75 for amounts up to $3,000.