A-Tech Goldsmith Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Tribunal Rayuan Kastam 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

A-Tech Goldsmith Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Tribunal Rayuan Kastam 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

The High Court held that ATMS relief under s.72 requires the foreign principal to be registered via TAP and approved specifically for that principal; the agency concept in s.65 does not override or extend the registration requirement in s.72; accordingly the Tribunal and Customs were correct to treat the value-added...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PA-16A-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintif: A-TECH GOLDSMITH SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 420872-A); Defendan Pertama: TRIBUNAL RAYUAN KASTAM; Defendan Kedua: KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 March 2023
Case Number
PA-16A-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Tax Appeal Against Customs Tribunal Decision / Judgment on Appeal (high Court) Dated 26 July 2023
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Goods and Services Tax (gst), Approved Toll Manufacturer Scheme (atms), Registration Requirements for Non Malaysian Principals, Interpretation of S.72 and S.65 GST Act, Tax Assessment and Audit
Tax Law Customs Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Goods and Services Tax (gst) Approved Toll Manufacturer Scheme (atms) Registration Requirements for Non Malaysian Principals Interpretation of S.72 and S.65 GST Act +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A-TECH GOLDSMITH SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 420872-A)

Plaintif

TRIBUNAL RAYUAN KASTAM

Defendan Pertama

KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM

Defendan Kedua

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Tax Appeal Against Customs Tribunal Decision / Judgment on Appeal (high Court) Dated 26 July 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether value-added work on gold qualified for GST exemption under ATMS when the foreign principals (Goldhouse and Prijo) were not registered through TAP
  2. 2 Whether companies acting as agents for a registered principal must themselves be registered to obtain ATMS relief
  3. 3 Whether section 65 (agency) applies to section 72 (ATMS)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that ATMS relief under s.72 requires the foreign principal to be registered via TAP and approved specifically for that principal; the agency concept in s.65 does not override or extend the registration requirement in s.72; accordingly the Tribunal and Customs were correct to treat the value-added work for unregistered entities as taxable and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs