Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Income tax assessment

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

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)

The court held that s.106(3) Income Tax Act 1967 prohibits the court in s.106 collection proceedings from entertaining any defence challenging the accuracy, validity or basis of the tax assessment; that question is a pure question of law determinative of the action and therefore the plaintiff's Order 14A application was allowed to strike out those defences and dispose of the need for a full trial; prior dismissal of an Order 14 did not amount to a final determination creating res judicata or issue estoppel in respect of the jurisdictional question now raised.
2 Mar 2026

Kerajaan Malaysia SH MOMENTOUS SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-21NCvC-46-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-46-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that notices of assessment for 2018 and 2019 were validly issued and served, the tax became due and payable and increased by 10% for non-payment, the Defendant did not appeal nor apply for extension, the s142(1) certificate rendered the assessments final and conclusive, there was no triable issue and summary judgment was appropriate for RM11,378,087.90 with costs RM5,000.00.
21 Jun 2023

Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI PEMBANGUNAN SWASTA SDN BHD) 2. ) ABU SAHID BIN MOHAMED

Citation

WA-21NCvC-18-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-18-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to raise any triable issue; by service of Notices of Assessment the assessed tax and statutory increments became due and payable; issues as to excess, correctness, appeal status or limitation are matters for the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (and s91(3) permits assessments beyond limitation in cases of fraud/wilful default/negligence); therefore summary judgment under Order 14 r.1 is appropriate and is entered for the Plaintiff for the stated sum with interest and costs.
2 Jun 2023

Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN) MOHD ZULFIQRI BIN ZAKARIA

Citation

MA-A71-198-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-A71-198-10/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Notices of assessment were validly served, thus taxes and statutory increases became due and payable; under sections 103 and 106 the court cannot entertain substantive challenges to the correctness or excess of the assessed amounts in civil recovery proceedings; the defendant raised no triable defence, so summary judgment was appropriate and entered for the plaintiff with costs.
4 Apr 2023

COURTS (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

BA-25-83-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-83-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was dismissed because the applicant breached the duty of candour by failing to disclose an existing appeal to the SCIT concerning the same assessments, the omission alleged (respondent's failure to exercise powers under s127(3A)/s135 ITA) is not a decision or omission susceptible to judicial review in the circumstances, the existence of an appeal to SCIT provided the proper alternative remedy making JR unnecessary and an abuse of process, and no special circumstances existed to justify a stay given mandatory payment obligations under s103 ITA.
20 Dec 2022

WESTPORTS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-285-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-285-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Minister's non-response constituted an omission within the scope of O 53 r 2(4) ROC and was therefore amenable to judicial review at the leave stage; the challenge was to the Minister's omission (not the DGIR's assessments), the application for leave was not frivolous, and the merits including statutory interpretation and exhaustion of s99 remedy are matters for the substantive hearing; leave and a stay were granted.
30 Nov 2022

ASTRO MALAYSIA HOLDINGS BERHAD PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

WA-25-42-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-42-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Minister's failure to respond to an urgent request within the specified time amounted to an omission reviewable under Order 53; the applicant was adversely affected by the non-decision because assessments under ss103 and 106 of the ITA exposed it to immediate payment or recovery action; the leave application was therefore not frivolous and leave was granted to pursue substantive judicial review of the Minister's omission.
3 Nov 2022

Teguh SNR Management Consulting Sdn Bhd Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-12A-60-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-60-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the writ and statement of claim were properly served and the default judgment was regular; the appellant failed to demonstrate any triable defence under the Income Tax Act and binding authorities (including the 'pay first, talk later' principle); additionally the unexplained six-year delay in applying to set aside justified refusal; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and the appeal dismissed with costs.
8 Sept 2022

Kerajaan Malaysia LOW TAEK JHO

Citation

PA-21NCvC-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-21NCvC-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

LHDN established a statutory cause of action by demonstrating defendant failed to file returns, was served with assessments and did not pay; s142 certificate is conclusive evidence of amount due; s106(3) and binding authority preclude the Court from entertaining merits-based defences (excessive, incorrectly assessed, under appeal, incorrectly increased) which are matters for the Special Commissioners; defendant raised no bona fide triable issue or other sufficient reason for trial (including speculative linkage to Suit 330); therefore summary judgment for the stated tax amount, interest and c…
4 Jul 2022

Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) GOLDEN CITRUS SDN BHD 2. ) LEAN GIN KENG 3. ) TAN SWEE LEONG

Citation

PA-21NCvC-38-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-21NCvC-38-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court applied the 'rare and compelling circumstances' test and found none: an appeal to the Special Commissioners and a separate pending Federal Court tax appeal do not amount to rare and compelling circumstances to justify staying the independent civil action to recover tax as a debt under s106; accordingly the defendants' application for a stay was dismissed with costs.