KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ISLAND CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT (M) SDN BHD

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ISLAND CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT (M) SDN BHD

Because the Director General's certificate under s142 constitutes prima facie evidence of tax due and the defendants failed to establish any bona fide triable issue (and may not challenge the assessment in s106 recovery proceedings but must appeal to the Special Commissioners), summary judgment was properly entered for the certified amount; alleged agreement to divert withheld land compensation to IRB had no legal effect under the Land Acquisition Act s29A.

Citation
BA-21NCVC-31-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PLAINTIF: Kerajaan Malaysia; DEFENDAN PERTAMA (1): Island Circle Development (M) Sdn. Bhd. (530763-T); DEFENDAN KEDUA (2): Chen Cheong Fat (No. K/P:570901-08-6695); DEFENDAN KETIGA (3): Rasli bin Musamah (No. K/P: 650808-10-5097)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Case Number
BA-21NCVC-31-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Guaman Sivil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
PKPS Voluntary Disclosure, Section 142 Certificate as Evidence, Section 106 Recovery Proceedings, Appeal to Special Commissioners, Withholding Under Land Acquisition Act S29 a, Standards for Summary Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Income Tax Tax Recovery Civil Procedure Land Acquisition Law Administrative Law PKPS Voluntary Disclosure Section 142 Certificate as Evidence Section 106 Recovery Proceedings +3 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kerajaan Malaysia

PLAINTIF

Island Circle Development (M) Sdn. Bhd. (530763-T)

DEFENDAN PERTAMA (1)

Chen Cheong Fat (No. K/P:570901-08-6695)

DEFENDAN KEDUA (2)

Rasli bin Musamah (No. K/P: 650808-10-5097)

DEFENDAN KETIGA (3)

Procedural Posture

Guaman Sivil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assessed tax was prematurely payable given pending land reference and unpaid compensation
  2. 2 Whether compensation for compulsory land acquisition is taxable and thus properly assessed
  3. 3 Whether an alleged agreement to pay IRB from monies withheld by the Land Administrator is legally effective and raises a triable issue

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Director General's certificate under s142 constitutes prima facie evidence of tax due and the defendants failed to establish any bona fide triable issue (and may not challenge the assessment in s106 recovery proceedings but must appeal to the Special Commissioners), summary judgment was properly entered for the certified amount; alleged agreement to divert withheld land compensation to IRB had no legal effect under the Land Acquisition Act s29A.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff for RM 6,574,798.34
  • Interest on the judgment sum at 5% per annum until the date of realisation