Ricca Peacock Asia Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Menteri Kewangan 2. ) Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri 3. ) Perbadanan Pembangunan Bioekonomi Malaysia Sdn Bhd (Dahulu Dikenali Sebagai Perbadanan Bioteknologi Malaysia Sdn Bhd) 4. ) Menteri Sains, Teknolo

BA-25-61-09/2023 Kand. 36 20/06/2024 16:57:35 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-61-09/2023 Dalam perkara mengenai keputusan Menteri Kewangan, Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri dan Perbadanan Pembangunan Bioekonomi Malaysia Sdn Bhd yang terkandung di dalam emel Perbadanan Pembangunan Bioekonomi Malaysia Sdn BHd bertarikh 12.06.2023; Dan Dalam perkara Akta Cukai Pendapatan, 1967 (Akta 53) khususnya seksyen 127; Dan Dalam perkara Perintah Cukai Pendapatan (Pengecualian) (No. 17) 2007 (Pindaan) 2018 [P.U.(A) 395/2018]; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah, 2012 dan Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 (Akta 91). ANTARA RICCA PEACOCK ASIA SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 200601009520 (729270-U) …PEMOHON DAN 1 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1. MENTERI KEWANGAN 2. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI 3. PERBADANAN PEMBANGUNAN BIOEKONOMI MALAYSIA SDN BHD (Dulu dikenali sebagai Perbadanan Bioteknologi Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.) (No. Syarikat: 200501014384 (691431-D)) 4. MENTERI SAINS, TEKNOLOGI DAN INOVASI …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGMENT (Pertaining to an application for leave pursuant to Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012) [1] This is an application by the applicant, Ricca Peacock Asia Sdn. Bhd. seeking leave of this court to commence judicial review proceedings under Order 53 Rule 3 Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). The reliefs sought by the applicant in Enclosure 1 are reproduced below: “(a) satu Perintah Certiorari untuk memindahkan ke Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan untuk membatalkan keputusan Responden Pertama (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “MK”), Responden Kedua (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “KPHDN”) dan Responden Ketiga (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “BC”), yang terkandung di dalam emel BC bertarikh 12.6.2023 (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Keputusan Pertama MK, KPHDN dan 2 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BC”), yang tidak meluluskan permohonan Pemohon untuk mengekalkan pengecualian cukai pendapatan sepenuhnya di bawah Perintah Cukai Pendapatan (Pengecualian) (No.17) 2007 [P.U.(A) 371/2007] seperti dipinda oleh Perintah Cukai Pendapatan (Pengecualian) (No.17) 2007 (Pindaan) 2018 [P.U.(A) 395/2018] (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Perintah tersebut”) untuk tempoh dari 1.7.2021 hingga tahun taksiran (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “T/T”) 2026, yang telah diberikan kepada Pemohon melalui Surat Award dari BC bertarikh 12.6.2013 (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Surat Award tersebut”) yang memberikan Pemohon, antara yang lain, pengecualian cukai pendapatan sepenuhnya (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Pengecualian Cukai Penuh”) atas pendapatan berkanun berkenaan aktiviti Pemohon yang layak (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Aktiviti Layak tersebut”) bersama-sama dengan galakan cukai lain, seperti kadar cukai konsesi 20% atas pendapatan berkanun dari Aktiviti Layak tersebut untuk tempoh 10 tahun setelah tamat tempoh Pengecualian Cukai Penuh serta potongan dua kali atas perbelanjaan penyelidikan dan pembangunan yang diluluskan (kemudian dari ini dirujuk secara kolektif sebagai “Galakan Cukai tersebut”); (b) satu Perisytiharan bahawa Keputusan Pertama MK, KPHDN dan BC adalah salah dan tidak sah di sisi undang- undang; (c) satu Perintah Certiorari untuk memindahkan ke Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan untuk membatalkan keputusan MK, KPHDN dan BC, yang terkandung di dalam emel BC bertarikh 12.6.2023, yang membatalkan 3 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pengecualian Cukai Penuh Pemohon (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Keputusan Kedua MK, KPHDN dan BC”); (d) satu Perisytiharan bahawa Keputusan Kedua MK, KPHDN dan BC adalah salah dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang; atau, sebagai alternatif kepada relif-relif yang dirujuk di dalam perenggan-perenggan kecil (a) hingga (d) di atas: (e) satu Perintah Certiorari untuk memindahkan ke Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan membatalkan keputusan MK dan BC, yang terkandung di dalam emel BC bertarikh 12.6.2023, yang tidak meluluskan permohonan Pemohon untuk mengekalkan Pengecualian Cukai Penuhnya untuk tempoh dari 1.7.2021 hingga T/T 2026 (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Keputusan Pertama MK dan BC”); (f) satu Perisytiharan bahawa Keputusan Pertama MK dan BC adalah salah dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang; (g) satu Perintah Certiorari untuk memindahkan ke Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan untuk membatalkan keputusan MK dan BC, yang terkandung di dalam emel BC bertarikh 12.6.2023, yang membatalkan Pengecualian Cukai Penuh tersebut (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Keputusan Kedua MK dan BC”); (h) satu Perisytiharan bahawa Keputusan Kedua MK dan BC adalah salah dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang; atau, sebagai alternatif kepada relif-relif yang dirujuk di dalam perenggan-perenggan kecil (a) hingga (h) di atas: (i) satu Perisytiharan bahawa Pemohon layak diberikan Pengecualian Cukai Penuh tersebut untuk tempoh selama 10 tahun bermula dari T/T 2017 hingga T/T 2026 (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Tempoh PCP”); 4 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (j) satu Perisytiharan bahawa taraf BioNexus Pemohon yang diberi melalui Surat Award tersebut adalah masih sah dan berkuatkuasa; (k) satu Perisytiharan bahawa Galakan Cukai tersebut yang diberi kepada Pemohon di bawah Surat Award tersebut adalah masih sah dan berkuatkuasa; atau, sebagai alternatif kepada relif-relif yang dirujuk di dalam perenggan-perenggan kecil (a) hingga (k) di atas: (l) jikapun Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini mendapati bahawa Pemohon tidak memenuhi syarat-syarat untuk Pengecualian Cukai Penuh tersebut (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Syarat-Syarat PCP”) untuk T/T 2015, satu Perintah Certiorari untuk memindahkan ke Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan membatalkan sebahagian daripada Keputusan Kedua MK dan BC/ Keputusan Kedua MK, KPHDN dan BC; (m) jikapun Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini mendapati bahawa Pemohon tidak memenuhi Syarat-Syarat PCP untuk T/T 2015, satu Perisytiharan bahawa Pemohon masih layak diberikan Pengecualian Cukai Penuh tersebut untuk tempoh bermula dari T/T 2017 hingga 30.6.2021; (n) jikapun Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini mendapati bahawa Pemohon tidak memenuhi Syarat-Syarat PCP untuk T/T 2015, satu Perisytiharan bahawa Pemohon masih layak diberikan Pengecualian Cukai Penuh tersebut untuk tempoh bermula dari 1.7.2021 hingga T/T 2026; atau, sebagai alternatif kepada relif-relif yang dirujuk di dalam perenggan-perenggan kecil (a) hingga (n) di atas: 5 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (o) satu Perintah Larangan untuk melarang Responden- Responden daripada mengambil apa-apa langkah, tindakan penguatkuasaan atau prosiding-prosiding berkenaan dengan atau yang timbul daripada mana-mana bahagian atau keseluruhan Keputusan Pertama MK, KPHDN dan BC, Keputusan Kedua MK, KPHDN dan BC, Keputusan Pertama MK dan BC dan Keputusan Kedua MK dan BC (kemudian dari ini dirujuk secara kolektif sebagai “Keputusan Yang Dipertikaikan”) termasuk, tanpa had, membuat tuntutan untuk pembayaran cukai dan penalti, mengeluarkan notis-notis tuntutan, atau mengambil sebarang langkah untuk menguatkuasakan atau melaksanakan Keputusan Yang Dipertikaikan atau mana-mana keputusan atau penemuan Responden- Responden yang sama sementara menunggu penentuan keesahan Keputusan Yang Dipertikaikan di bawah prosiding ini menurut Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (termasuk mana-mana rayuan lanjutan daripadanya); dan sebagai tambahan ataupun alternatif selanjutnya kepada relif-relif yang dirujuk di dalam perenggan-perenggan kecil (a) hingga (o) di atas: (p) satu Perisytiharan bahawa Keputusan Yang Dipertikaikan adalah berlebihan, berkadar tidak seimbang (“disproportionate”) dan salah dan harus dipinda atau diubah (“amended or varied”) sebagaimana yang difikirkan wajar oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk mencapai/memperolehi suatu keputusan yang bersekadar (“proportionate”) dengan komitmen pelaburan dan pematuhan Pemohon; dan berikutan perintah-perintah yang relevan yang diberikan di atas, 6 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (q) satu Perintah Mandamus untuk mengkehendaki Responden-Responden melepaskan, menyemak semula, membatalkan, meminda atau mengubah, mengikut mana- mana yang berkenaan, Keputusan Yang Dipertikaikan untuk menguatkuasakan Perintah-Perintah Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini yang berkenaan dan/atau setakat Mahkamah Yang Mulia fikirkan wajar; (r) satu Perintah Mandamus untuk mewajibkan KPHDN membayar balik kepada Pemohon mana-mana dan kesemua bayaran-bayaran cukai-cukai, penalty-penalti, denda-denda (“fines”), caj-caj (“charges”), hutang-hutang, kenaikan-kenaikan atau mana-mana jumlah-jumlah tambahan (“additional sums”) (kemudian dari ini dirujuk secara kolektif sebagai “Cukai Dipertikaikan”) yang timbul daripada pemberian mana-mana relief oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini; (s) kos-kos; (t) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun atau mana-mana kadar lain yang diarahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini ke atas mana-mana bayaran-bayaran Cukai Dipertikaikan, yang dibayar balik oleh KPHDN kepada Pemohon; dan (u) relif selanjutnya, relif alternatif, relief konsequential, atau lain-lain relif yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini fikirkan wajar.” Objection by Attorney General [2] This application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings were objected to by the Honorable Attorney General on the following grounds: 7 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (i) no decision, act or omission was made by the respondents i.e. (Minister of Finance/ Ministry Energy) under Order 53 of the ROC 2012; (ii) the applicant’s relief is in effect a mandamus however the applicant failed to establish a legal duty; and (iii) the applicant’s application for judicial review is premature in nature. Objection by Putative Second Respondent [3] The putative second respondent sought to be heard pursuant to Order 53 Rule 8 of the ROC 2012. The putative second respondent objected to this application for leave. [4] The crux of the putative second respondent’s objection is that there is no decision which is subject to judicial review and hence this application for leave to commence judicial review is premature. Factual Background [5] The facts of this judicial review are garnered from documents filed by parties with modifications. The applicant is a private limited company involved in manufacturing, research and development, marketing, and distributing products related to flavours, fragrances, and essential oils produced through biotechnological processes. On 10 October 2012, the applicant informed the third respondent via email that it had submitted an online application for BNX Status to 8 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the third respondent for its “Qualifying Activities” (“the Applicant’s BNX Application”). [6] BNX Status is a recognition awarded by the Malaysian Government through the third respondent to qualified companies engaged in value-added biotechnology activities. Companies with BNX Status enjoy various incentives and privileges outlined in the BioNexus Bill of Guarantees, including tax exemptions, freedom of ownership, global funding opportunities, the ability to bring in knowledge workers, access to competitive incentives, support for international accreditations, and access to shared laboratories and facilities. [7] According to the December 2019 Guidelines on the Process and Procedures for BioNexus Status Application, applicants must apply to the third respondent, where an Account Manager evaluates their eligibility. The third respondent handles pre-application assessments and can decline unsuccessful pre-applications. The application is then reviewed by the third respondent Evaluation Committee, which includes representatives from several ministries. The Evaluation Committee can approve, reject, or request further information, with final approval and tax incentives subject to the first respondent’s decision. [8] The applicant submitted its BNX application to the third respondent who reviewed the application and requested further information and clarification from the applicant. This included a letter of consent for a credit check and additional details regarding the applicant’s implementation plan, R&D projects, production flow chart, and contract manufacturing services. 9 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [9] After completing its review, the third respondent informed the applicant via a letter dated 15 May 2013 that the BioNexus Evaluation Committee (“BEC”) had recommended the applicant’s BNX Application for approval by the first respondent. [10] On 12 June 2013, the third respondent issued a Letter of Award to the applicant, informing them that first respondent had approved their BNX Status based on the third respondent’s recommendation. The applicant was granted BNX Status along with a full tax exemption for ten years and other tax incentives. [11] The BNX Status Certificate and Confirmation letter were issued by the third respondent. Subsequent annual BioNexus Compliance Reviews were also conducted by the third respondent to ensure adherence to the BioNexus Eligibility Criteria and relevant conditions. [12] The terms and conditions for BNX Status was changed one year later vide the third respondent’s letter whereby the applicant must notify the third respondent of any circumstance which may affect the applicant’s BNX Status or its performance of the Qualifying Activities etc. [13] Under Clause 11 of the 2014 Revised Terms and Conditions, if the applicant defaults on any obligations, the third respondent may either allow for remedial action or revoke the applicant’s BNX Status. In 2015, the third respondent requested the applicant to provide justifications and remedial action plans for specific issues. [14] All progress reports, audited accounts, R&D process details, Online Submission System Reports (“OSS Reports”), management 10 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal accounts and Knowledge Workers Key Statistics Forms were requested, reviewed, and handled solely by the third respondent. All compliance reviews were conducted by the third respondent. [15] On 18 and 19 October 2019, the third respondent confirmed that the applicant’s BNX Status and Tax Exemption remained intact and would not be revoked. On 6 August 2020, the third respondent informed the applicant of updates and changes to the Tax Exemption, stating that it would only be enjoyed up to 30 June 2021, but all other terms and conditions in the applicant’s Letter of Award remained in effect. On the same day, the third respondent informed the applicant about the implementation of certain “Substance Requirements” due to Malaysia joining the Inclusive Framework under the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) project to combat harmful tax practices. [16] Although the applicant was granted a 10-year Tax Exemption, due to BEPS, this exemption would end on 30 June 2021. To continue the Tax Exemption beyond this date, BNX Status companies such as the applicant needed to make a new application to the third respondent, complying with the new Substance Requirements. [17] On 18 August 2020, the applicant informed the third respondent of its interest in continuing its BNX Status and Tax Exemption after 30 June 2021. The third respondent responded by sending the relevant forms on 11 September 2020. On 25 February 2021, the applicant submitted its “BioNexus Status: Grandfathering and Substantial Activities” application for the post-grandfathering period to the third respondent for approval, in line with the DGIR’s Public Ruling No. 1/2020 on Tax Incentives for BioNexus Status Companies. 11 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [18] On 1 April 2021, the third respondent informed the applicant that an online site visit would be conducted. The third respondent then suggested amendments to the applicant’s Grandfathering Application and Revised Compliance Declaration Form. The applicant submitted its revised application on 23 and 28 December 2021. [19] However, on 8 September 2022, the third respondent informed the applicant via email that after discussions with the first and second respondent, the Grandfathering Application was rejected and the third respondent had prepared an appeal for the first respondent. [20] On 8 February 2023, the third respondent verbally confirmed that the applicant’s BNX Status was still intact as no revocation letter had been issued. However, the applicant was also informed that the revised Grandfathering Application was rejected due to the applicant having generated trading income in the financial year 2015, eight years prior. [21] On 5 April 2023, the third respondent informed the applicant that the first respondent inquired about the tax exemption amount claimed during the Tax Exemption period. [22] On 12 June 2023, the third respondent then emailed the applicant stating as follows: “We would like to update you on Ricca Peacock Asia’s substantial activity application. After a series of discussion with MOF and IRB along with our senior management’ we are unable to proceed with your application due to the non- compliance issue (100% non-qualifying activity revenue). 12 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal We regret to inform you that Bioeconomy Corporation is required to initiate the withdrawal of BioNexus Status and its tax incentives process on Ricca Peacock Asia Sdn Bhd.” [Emphasis added] [23] On 12 June 2023, the third respondent informed the applicant via email that, following discussions with the first respondent, second respondent, and the third respondent’s senior management, they could not proceed with the applicant’s Grandfathering Application due to a non-compliance issue. [24] Clauses 9 and 10 of the BNX Status terms and conditions, along with Clause 11 of the 2014 Revised Terms and Conditions, state that the third respondent has the authority to revoke the applicant’s BNX Status. Additionally, paragraph 8 of the Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 17) Order 2007 explicitly grants first respondent the power to revoke the applicant’s Tax Exemption. Principles relating to leave for Judicial Review [25] The guiding principles for leave for judicial review is that the applicant must show prima facie that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. In this regard, the case of WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2012] 4 CLJ 478 stated as follows: 13 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “[12] For purposes of its application, the appellant had alluded to the statutory route of O.53 of the Rules. Under this order two stages are anticipated, with the leave stage being the first, to be followed closely by the substantive hearing after successfully obtaining leave at the High Court. At the leave stage on a quick perusal of the material available, if the court thinks that subsequently at the substantive hearing stage an arguable case may be disclosed, and the relief sought may be granted, leave should be granted (IRC v. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Business Ltd [1982] AC 617). In Malaysia, the Federal Court in Mohd Nordin Johan v. The Attorney-General, Malaysia [1983] 1 CLJ 130; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 271 when allowing the appeal, opined that ‘the point taken was not frivolous to merit refusal of leave in limine and justified argument on a substantive motion for certiorari’. Without the need to go into depth of the abundant authorities, suffice if we stage that leave may be granted if the leave application is not thought of as frivolous, and if leave is granted, an arguable case in favour of granting the relief sought at the substantive hearing may be the resultant outcome. A rider must be attached to the application though ie, unless the matter for judicial review is amenable to judicial review absolutely no success may be envisaged.” [26] The Supreme Court in Association of Bank Officers, Peninsular Malaysia v. Malayan Commercial Banks Association [1990] 1 CLJ Rep 33 (SC) stated the requirement for the application to challenge an Industrial Court Award to show, prima facie, that it is not frivolous or vexatious and there is substance in the proposed challenge. The Supreme Court stated: 14 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “At the outset of the hearing of the appeal before us, we indicated to the parties that we would hear submissions on the issue of leave only… The guiding principles ought to be that the applicants must show prima facie that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. On the evidence in this case we found that the appellants had prima facie an arguable case for the granting of the relief they were seeking. Their application was not frivolous or vexatious. There were grounds to consider the allegations made by the appellants and which could only be properly heard and determined on the substantive application for an order of certiorari after leave has been granted.” [27] Founded on the principles enunciated in the authorities stated above, this court will consider the application for leave. Analysis [28] This court will now proceed consider the objections raised by the Honorable Attorney General. Pertaining to the objections raised by the putative second respondent, this court is of the view that the objection raised is the same as the objection raised by the Honorable Attorney General. Hence, this court will now proceed to consider the objections raised by the Honorable Attorney General. 15 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal No Decision, Act or Omission was made by the respondents i.e. (Minister of Finance/ Ministry Energy) under Order 53 of the ROC 2012 [29] It was argued by learned Federal Counsel that there was no decision made which is subject to judicial review. In support of this argument, the learned Federal Counsel cited the case of Ahli-Ahli Suruhanjaya Yang Membentuk Suruhanjaya Siasatan Mengenai Rakaman Klip Video Yang Mengandungi Imej Seorang Yang Dikatakan Peguambela Dan Peguamcara Berbual Melalui Telefon Mengenai Urusan Pelantikan Hakim- Hakim vs Tun Dato’ Seri Ahmad Fairuz bin Dato’ Sheikh Abdul Halim [2012] 1 CLJ 805 which stated the following: “[27] We adopt the same view. Under the scheme of O. 53 of the RHC, only a person adversely affected by the decision of a public authority shall be entitled to make the application for judicial review. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Commission is a public authority. But we are of the view that the Commission is not a decision making body. A closer look at the Commission’s report will reveal that the Commission does not make legal decision.” [30] In this application for leave to commence judicial review, the first respondent is the Minister of Finance, the second respondent is the Director General of Inland Revenue’s, the third respondent is the Perbadanan Pembangunan Bioekonomi Malaysia Snd Bhd (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Perbadanan Bioteknologi Malaysia Sdn Bhd) and the fourth respondent is the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation. 16 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [31] The applicant’s judicial review application is premised on an email dated 12 June 2023. A perusal of this email dated 12 June 2023 indicates that the email is from the third respondent to the applicant. In the email of 12 June 2023, the third respondent stated that the third respondent was unable to proceed with the applicant’s substantial activity application due to the non-compliance issue (100% non-qualifying activity revenue) and thus the third respondent was required to initiate the withdrawal of BioNexus Status and its tax incentives process on the applicant. [32] A scrutiny of the email dated 12 June 2023 clearly demonstrates that the email is not from the first respondent, second respondent or fourth respondent. It appears to this court, based on this email, there is no decision from the first respondent, second respondent or fourth respondent on the applicant’s substantial activity application. [33] In this regard, Order 53 Rule 2(4) of the ROC 2012 provides: “4. Any person who is adversely affected by the decision, action or omission in relation to the existence of the public duty or function shall be entitled to make the application.” [Emphasis added] [34] Order 53 Rule 2(4) of the ROC 2012 provides a decision falls under its scope if it alters the rights or obligations of the aggrieved party or deprives them of permitted benefits. The decision must directly affect the legal rights of the applicant and be legally binding. If the actions in question do not involve decisions that affect the 17 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal applicant’s rights, the application should be dismissed at the leave stage without needing to proceed to a substantive hearing. [35] It is the applicant’s contention that the applicant has been adversely affected by the email of 12 June 2023. Nonetheless, it appears to this court that in the email of 12 June 2023 there was no decision communicated by the first respondent, second respondent or the fourth respondent. [36] Pertaining to the third respondent, in the view of this court, having regard to the email dated 12 June 2023, the third respondent was unable to proceed with the applicant’s substantial activity application due to the non-compliance issue (100% non-qualifying activity revenue) and therefore the third respondent was required to initiate the withdrawal of BioNexus Status and its tax incentives process on the applicant. Moreover, the issue which arises is whether the third respondent is a public authority which is susceptible to judicial review proceedings. [37] Having taken into consideration the facts of this judicial review and the authorities cited, this court opines that there is no decision before this court which would allow the applicant to commence judicial review proceedings. In short, this application for judicial review, in the view of this court is premature. The applicant relief in effect a mandamus however the applicant failed to establish a legal duty [38] In the relief (q) in Enclosure 1, the applicants had sought the following: 18 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “satu Perintah mandamus untuk mengkehendaki Responden- Responden melepaskan, menyemak semula, membatalkan, meminda dan mengubah, mengikut mana-mana yang berkenaan, Keputusan Yang Dipertikaikan untuk menguatkuasakan Perintah-Perintah Mahkamh Yang Mulia ini yang berkenaan dan/atau setakat Mahkamah Yang Mulia fikirkan wajar;” [39] In order for this court to grant an order of mandamus, reference is made to subsection 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 as reproduced below: “(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) the High Court shall have the additional powers set out in the Schedule: Provided that all such powers shall be exercised in accordance with any written law or rules of court relating to the same.” [40] Moreover, paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) provides: "Prerogative writs 1. Power to issue to any person or authority directions, orders or writs, including writs of the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any others, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part II of the Constitution, or any of them, or for any purpose.” 19 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [41] Whereas subsection 44(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1950 provides: “44. (1) A Judge may make an order requiring any specific act to be done or forborne, by any person holding a public office, her of a permanent or a temporary nature, or by any corporation or any court subordinate to the High Court: Provided that- (a) an application for such an order be made by some person whose property, franchise, or personal right would be injured by the forbearing or doing, as the case may be, of the said specific act; (b) such doing or forbearing is, under any law for the time being in force, clearly incumbent on the person or court in his or its public character, or on the corporation in its corporate character; (c) in the opinion of the Judge the doing or forbearing is consonant to right and justice; (d) the applicant has no other specific and adequate legal remedy; and (e) the remedy given by the order applied for will be complete.” [42] The facts of this application for judicial review are that the applicant seeks to compel the respondents to set aside the decision dated 12 June 2023. [43] However, as this court had decided there is no decision by the respondents in this case, it follows therefore that there is no legal duty imposed against the respondents. 20 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [44] In the case of Karpal Singh Ram Singh v. Ketua Hakim Negara [2011] 4 CLJ 179 (Aziah Ali J) stated: “[16] Mandamus can be granted only when a legal duty is imposed on an authority. In MP Jain ‘Administrative Law of Malaysia and Singapore’ 3rd edn at pp. 652, 653 it is stated: The order of mandamus is a command issued by the High Court asking an authority to perform a public duty imposed upon it by law … Mandamus can be granted only when (i) a legal duty is imposed on an authority, and it does not perform the same; and (ii) the applicant has a legal right to compel the performance of the public duty prescribed by law. What can be enforced through mandamus is a duty of a public nature, the performance of which is imperative and not optional or discretionary with the concerned authority. Thus, if an officer has power, rather than a duty, and if he does not use his power, mandamus is not issued to compel him to exercise his power. As correctly submitted by counsel holding watching brief for the Bar Council, the Code does not provide for a method or manner in dealing with a situation where a complaint is made against the Chief Justice. Likewise as submitted by the Attorney General, ss. 12 and 13 of the Code do not impose a legal duty on the respondent to act in the manner dictated by the applicant. Therefore in the absence of any legal duty that is imperative and not optional or discretionary in nature imposed upon the respondent under ss. 12 and 13 of the Code, I find that the applicant has failed to satisfy the condition under s. 21 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44(1)(b) of the SRA. Thus this is further ground to dismiss the application for being frivolous.” [45] In Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 CLJ 123 the Federal Court held at page 142: “[38] In MP Jain’s Administrative Law in Malaysia and Singapore, 2nd edn, 1980, the learned author said, at pp. 449 and 450: … Mandamus can be granted only when a legal duty is imposed on an authority and the applicant has a legal right to compel the performance of the public duty prescribed by law, and to keep the subordinate bodies and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Mandamus is thus a very wide remedy which is available against a public officer to see that he does his duty. What can be enforced through mandamus is a duty of a public nature the performance of which is imperative and not optional or discretionary with the authority concerned. Thus, if an officer has a power rather than a duty, and he does not use his power, mandamus cannot be issued.” [Emphasis added] [46] In summary, as there is no legal obligation imposed on the respondent by any law, the applicant cannot compel the 22 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal respondents to revoke the additional assessment notice issued by the second respondent on 19 December 2022. This is because the respondents do not have a legal duty to revoke the assessment notice under the Income Tax Act 1967. [47] As there is no legal duty on the respondents, there relief of mandamus cannot be granted by this court. Applicant’s application for judicial review is premature in nature. [48] Pertaining to this objection, this court had stated in earlier paragraph that as there is no decision, and therefore this application for judicial review is premature. [49] In short, as there is no decision, the applicant, in the considered view of this court, cannot be adversely affected. In this regard, Order 53 Rule 2(4) ROC 2012 provides that a decision must affect the aggrieved party by either altering his rights or obligations or depriving him of the benefits which he has been permitted to enjoy. Conclusion [50] For the abovementioned reasons, this court is satisfied that there is no decision that is susceptible to judicial review. This application is, in this court’s considered view, premature. 23 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [51] Therefore, this application for leave to commence judicial review is hereby dismissed. Costs of RM 2,000.00 to be paid to the Attorney General Chambers and cost of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the putative second respondent. Date: 20 June 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam 24 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Counsel: For the applicant: Irene Yong Yoke Ngor, Chantal Leann Barnabas Tetuan Shearn Delamore & Co Advocates & Solicitors 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzah-Kwong Hing, No. 1, Leboh Ampang, 50100 Kuala Lumpur. info@shearndelamore.com +6 03 2027 2727 For the 1st respondent: Krishna Priya a/p Veenagopal @ Venugopal Jabatan Peguam Negara Bahagian Guaman, No. 45, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya. pro@agc.gov.my +6 03 8872 2000 For the 2nd respondent: Wan Khairuddin bin Wan Montil, Ashrina Binti Ramzan Ali Bahagian Rayuan Khas, Jabatan Undang-Undang, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia, Menara Hasil Aras 16, Persiaran Rimba Permai, Cyber 8, 63000 Cyberjaya, Selangor. +6 03 8313 8865 25 S/NBA-25-61-09/2023 T5dTxH0YP0iqA9mtKltWlA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal