Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recovery of tax as debt

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2024

Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) DREAMEDGE SDN. BHD. 2. ) KHAIRIL ADRI BIN ADNAN

Citation

BA-21NCvC-65-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-65-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Limitation Act defence could not automatically defeat a government tax recovery claim because the proviso to section 33 Limitation Act 1953 excludes proceedings by the Government to recover tax; Mahawira was distinguishable and the Court must examine service compliance under sections 96 and 145 ITA 1967 — finding the Second Defendant was not served in accordance with the Act so the claim against him failed, while the claim against the First Defendant proceeded and summary judgment was appropriate under section 106 ITA 1967 against the company.
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.
20 Mar 2023

Kerajaan Malaysia ANUAR BIN ABD AZIZ

Citation

WA-21NCvC-54-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-54-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff discharged evidential burden by exhibiting the Notices and affidavits showing posting to Defendant's last known addresses so the Notices were deemed served under s145(2)(c) ITA; section 106(3) bars challenges to the amount in recovery proceedings, and any alleged defect in the certificate does not create a triable issue because delegation and authority principles validate certificates or are not fatal to recovery on summary judgment.
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.
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…
6 Jul 2022

Kerajaan Malaysia INTEGRATED MARINE WORKS SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-21NCvC-53-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-53-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the impugned notices were properly posted to the defendant's last known addresses and therefore deemed served under s.145(2); the defendant failed to rebut that presumption. The Certificate of Indebtedness was valid because the written authorization to the signing officer remained subsisting and had not been revoked, and precedent permits reliance on such certificates as sufficient evidence of the debt. Consequently there was no triable issue and summary judgment was warranted.
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.
21 Aug 2020

GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA 1. ) 1. SEPANG SETIA SDN BHD 2. ) 2. PATIMAH BINTI ISA

Citation

BK - A51NCVC - 2 - 12/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK - A51NCVC - 2 - 12/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Summary judgment was appropriate because the Director-General's estimated assessment (s.90(3)), the s.142(1) certificate and s.106(3) preclude the court from entertaining challenges to the quantum in recovery proceedings; the notice was validly served and the director is jointly and severally liable under s.75A; the defendants' assertions did not raise a triable issue under O.14 ROC 2012.