Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Goods and services tax

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2025

ROHAS-EUCO INDUSTRIES BHD KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(A)-802-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-802-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

S.8(1) of the GST Repeal Act applies only to input tax claims not claimed before the appointed date (affecting August 2018 claim) but does not authorize forfeiture of input tax credits; Director General may withhold refunds under s.38(5) pending verification or due to failure to furnish returns, but such withholding cannot amount to indefinite forfeiture and valid ITC must be refunded; High Court's dismissal was a manifest error and is set aside; Appellant entitled to relief as prayed and costs.
9 Dec 2024

1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM) ZILLION SUNRISE SDN. BHD.

Citation

W-01(A)-744-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-744-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed. Regulation 39(2)(b) prescribes that where goods are used exclusively for taxable supplies the whole input tax is attributable; regulation 46(1) only permits authorization to treat prior tax as input tax but does not confer power to apportion using a formula not found in law; repeal of the GST Act did not extinguish accrued rights under s30(1)(b) Interpretation Acts, therefore Customs' apportionment and large disallowance was unlawful and the High Court's certiorari quashing Customs' decision was upheld.
20 Mar 2024

AYAM AA FARM SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) TRIBUNAL RAYUAN KASTAM

Citation

AA-24NCvC-148-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCvC-148-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The written agreements between Appellant and Contract Farmers expressly created sale-and-purchase transactions (Appellant supplied DOC, feed and medicines which were purchased by Contract Farmers who sold mature broilers back at specified prices); therefore the transactions are taxable supplies under Section 9(1) GST Act 2014. The Bill of Demand of MYR 3,116,641.74 is valid, the Appellant is not entitled to a refund, and costs awarded to Respondent.
14 Mar 2024

Sunningdale Tech Penang Sdn Bhd 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Tribunal Rayuan Kastam

Citation

WA-24-69-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24-69-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Director General had no statutory power under the GST Act or GST Regulations to apply a Special Formula or otherwise apportion the appellant's claim under reg 46; regs 57-60 do not authorize the impugned reduction; items relating to electricity installation and professional fees were proved capitalised and therefore qualify as Exceptional ITCs under reg 46; the Tribunal erred in affirming the DG's apportionment and disallowance.
19 Dec 2023

KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA METROGOLD COMMERCIAL SDN BHD

Citation

W-01(A)-342-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-342-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Respondent was a 'taxable person' when the input tax was incurred (liable to be registered and approved), therefore Sections 38 and 39 read with Regulation 39 required attribution of the whole input tax to taxable supplies and refund where no output tax was due; DG of Customs had no statutory power to apportion or reduce the ITC claim under Regulation 46 or the Repeal Act; the High Court decision quashing the apportionment was correctly affirmed and appeal dismissed.
26 Jun 2023

KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM DAN EKSAIS 1. ) TOMOE SDN BHD 2. ) TRIBUNAL RAYUAN KASTAM

Citation

PA-24NCvC-300-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-300-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Regulation 46(1) grants Customs power to authorise exceptional input tax claims but contains no statutory power to reduce or apportion the claimed amount; the Best Method Formula is not prescribed in the GSTA or Regulations and its application is ultra vires; the repeal of the GSTA did not extinguish an Exceptional ITC claim made before repeal; taxpayer entitled to full refund.
23 Jun 2023

KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA Jimah East Power Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-01(A)-601-11/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-601-11/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that Regulation 46 does not operate independently of ss 2, 38 and 39 of the GST Act and Reg 39; pre-registration GST can only be treated as input tax if it is attributable, allowable and reasonable in relation to taxable supplies. Because the respondent's power plant commenced taxable supplies after GST was abolished, the bulk of the claimed pre-registration GST was not attributable to taxable supplies within the statutory framework and therefore the DG was correct to disallow the full Exceptional ITC Claim; only the small portion attributable to furniture and fitting…
29 Dec 2022

AHMAD ZAWAWI BIN ABDUL RAHIM

Citation

AA-42GS-7-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42GS-7-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the seven refunds constituted evasion under the GST Act; s89(6) presumption applied and the appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; failure to call material witnesses justified adverse inference; procedural reliance on s180 CPC was irregular but not fatal; sentences of three years per count were lawful and to run concurrently; application for repayment under s122 failed for lack of Director General's certificate; application for stay was dismissed for absence of special/exceptional circumstances.
29 Dec 2022

AHMAD ZAWAWI BIN ABDUL RAHIM

Citation

AA-42GS-4-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42GS-4-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed convictions because the prosecution proved falsified GST‑03 entries and resulting refunds into the appellant's bank account; s89(6) presumption applied and the appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; failure to call key witnesses and contradictory investigatory findings (no active farm, branch a fruit stall, expiring/unsigned agreement) justified adverse inferences; the procedural irregularity in citing s180 rather than s173 CPC did not occasion failure of justice; sentences of three years per count were within statutory limits and correctly order…
14 Jun 2021

L & L GLASS ALUMINIUM TRADING SDN BHD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) (NO. SYARIKAT : 267476-M) 1. ) 1. MBOND MANUFACTURER SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 1077474-A) 2. ) 2. JABTAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-271-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-271-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 7.1 of the Sale and Purchase Agreements unambiguously imposed a mandatory obligation on the purchaser to pay the GST relating to the transactions. The purchaser accepted invoiced sums and made partial GST payment, and therefore cannot repudiate its contractual obligation; the Sessions Court failed to appreciate these facts and legal effects. The High Court allowed the appeal, granted the vendor's reliefs in paragraphs 1–3 of the amended writ and set aside the Sessions Court decision.