PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide good reasons for delay; the impugned DGIR notices and Minister's letter were not final decisions amenable to judicial review as the statutory appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax remained available; consequently the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave and the JR application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: CHEN, WEN-CHIN; First Respondent: Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri; Second Respondent: Menteri Kewangan Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 February 2022
Case Number
PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (order 53) / Leave Stage (application for Leave and Stay; Extension of Time)
Outcome
Application for extension of time and leave refused; judicial review application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; stay refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Amenability to Judicial Review, Certiorari, Mandamus, Natural Justice, Statutory Appeal to Special Commissioners of Income Tax
Source Language
Malay/English
Tax Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Amenability to Judicial Review Certiorari Mandamus Natural Justice +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEN, WEN-CHIN

Applicant

Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

First Respondent

Menteri Kewangan Malaysia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (order 53) / Leave Stage (application for Leave and Stay; Extension of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judicial review application was time‑barred and whether there was good reason to extend time
  2. 2 Whether the impugned notices/decisions by the DGIR and Minister were final and amenable to judicial review or only challengeable by statutory appeal to the SCIT

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide good reasons for delay; the impugned DGIR notices and Minister's letter were not final decisions amenable to judicial review as the statutory appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax remained available; consequently the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave and the JR application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and leave refused; judicial review application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; stay refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Leave to commence judicial review refused