Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Income tax act 1967

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2026

TAN IT MING KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI

Citation

WA-14-3-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-14-3-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found that, taken in context of the parties' correspondence and the trial events, the Respondent's withdrawal of concession letters and the amendment of the Issues To Be Tried on the trial day materially prejudiced the Appellants' ability to adduce evidence and call witnesses, thereby curtailing their right to a fair hearing; accordingly the appropriate remedy under paragraph 39(b) Schedule 5 ITA 1967 is to remit the matter to the Special Commissioners for rehearing.
22 Dec 2025

Kerajaan Malaysia R SURESH A/L RAMU

Citation

JA-21NCvC-6-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-6-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The statutory scheme (Income Tax Act 1967) authorises recovery of assessed tax as a civil debt, a s142(1) certificate is sufficient evidence of the debt, and s106(3) bars the civil court from entertaining merits-based challenges to the assessment; the defendant failed to show any legally sustainable defence or triable issue and defaulted on case management directions, therefore summary judgment was appropriate.
16 Dec 2025

INQPHARM GROUP SDN BHD Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

WA-25-9-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-9-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for judicial review was dismissed because the challenge raised fact-sensitive issues (characterisation of receipts, factual disputes on nature of assets transferred, and alleged negligence) which must be determined by the specialist domestic forum (SCIT); accordingly the applicant failed to exhaust the available statutory remedy and judicial review was inappropriate; ancillary issues (time-bar, penalties, reasons) likewise require factual determination by SCIT.
21 Mar 2025

Kerajaan Malaysia STAR EFFORT SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-21NCvC-35-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-35-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the notices were duly served under s145(2), the s142(1) certificate provided sufficient evidence of the tax due, and s103 and s106 permit civil recovery; the res judicata/double‑claim argument failed because the current claim arose from a shortfall identified after audit and was not barred by earlier consent judgments; therefore the plaintiff’s application for judgment was allowed with costs RM3,000.00.
5 Nov 2024

Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri KIND ACTION (M) SDN BHD AMICUS CURIE BAR MALAYSIA

Citation

01(f)-18-05/2024(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-18-05/2024(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Because the Director General accepted the RPGT returns and issued a certificate of clearance and no appeal was filed, the RPGT assessments became final and conclusive under s.20(1) RPGTA; therefore estoppel in pais and legitimate expectation barred the appellant from imposing additional income tax under the ITA, and the respondent was entitled to seek judicial review in the High Court without first pursuing the Special Commissioners of Income Tax; appeal dismissed.
19 Sept 2023

Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) PEMBINAAN KOTA LAKSAMANA (MELAKA) SDN. BHD. 2. ) MAT SHAH BIN SAPUAN 3. ) MOHD FAIZAL BIN MAT@MATSHAH

Citation

BA-21NCvC-29-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-29-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Following the Federal Court's authority, recovery under section 106 ITA is an enforcement mechanism for collection (pay first, dispute later); section 106(3) bars the court from adjudicating merits of the assessment in recovery proceedings and Order 14 Rule 3 does not apply, therefore the Plaintiff's summary recovery application was properly allowed once notices were shown to have been served and the statutory prerequisites met.
31 Jan 2023

GEZHOUBA ENGINEERING (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-61-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-61-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Minister's non-response to the applicant's request under s135 and/or s127(3A) did not constitute a reviewable decision or omission; the applicant failed to exhaust the statutory appeal under s99 to the Special Commissioner and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances required to bypass that remedy, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
5 Dec 2022

Kerajaan Malaysia YU GIM SAN

Citation

DA-21NCvC-24-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-24-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held K27 (stay application) was not defective but refused it because the defendant failed to show special circumstances to justify a stay; the 'pay first, talk later' principle under ss103 and 106 Income Tax Act 1967 means tax assessments are conclusive for recovery and s106(3) prevents the court from entertaining pleas about assessment amounts, therefore the plaintiff's application for judgment (K19) succeeded and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the assessed sum.
13 Sept 2022

Kerajaan Malaysia TEBRAU BAY SDN. BHD. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI KPRJ NUSANTARA SDN. BHD.)

Citation

JA-21NCvC-13-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-13-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to establish any triable issue; pursuant to s.106(3) ITA the court may not entertain challenges to the assessment and, given the s.142(1) ITA certificate, the court was obliged to enter summary judgment for the Plaintiff for the certified amount of RM10,831,595.48.
1 Sept 2022

IMPIAN SELOKA SDN. BHD. PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

WA-25-259-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-259-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Minister's omission to respond to the applicant's request constituted a reviewable omission under O53 r2(4) ROC; the applicant was adversely affected by that omission and the leave application was not frivolous, therefore leave for judicial review is granted; issues as to merits (whether ss135 or 127(3A) permit setting aside the assessments) are reserved for substantive hearing.