Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tax exemption

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2025

KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA Hong Leong Yamaha Motor Sdn Bhd

Citation

01(f)-24-08/2024(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-24-08/2024(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Federal Court held Item 1 Schedule C of P.U.(A) 210 applies to registered manufacturers in respect of taxable finished goods only; a registered manufacturer cannot claim exemption for taxable inputs used to produce tax‑exempt finished goods because that would defeat the single‑stage tax scheme and permit double exemption; onus is on taxpayer to prove entitlement; Littman/Ben‑Odeco principles apply to limit expansive readings of exemption provisions. The Court answered Question 1 in the negative and Questions 2 and 3 in the positive and reinstated the High Court decision.
28 Nov 2024

YAYASAN BUAH PINGGANG KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

BA-25-78-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-78-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The revocation (letter dated 17.06.2020) was quashed because although s.148 ITA 1967 confers power to vary or revoke approvals and to impose conditions (including retrospectively), the respondent failed to communicate the purported conditions or the Violation Point System to the applicant and relied on uncommunicated criteria, rendering the decision unlawful and unreasonable; preliminary objections on time‑bar and non‑disclosure were dismissed or addressed but did not preclude relief.
4 Jul 2023

Maxis Broadband Sdn. Bhd. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

WA-25-562-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-562-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave for judicial review was granted because the application disclosed an arguable, non-frivolous case raising primarily questions of law (whether the IRB exceeded jurisdiction/committed Anisminic error in disallowing the exemption) and because the statutory appeal under s99 ITA did not preclude judicial review where SCIT cannot provide effective interim relief and the applicant faced real risk of irreversible enforcement; an interim stay was justified to preserve the status quo given substantial tax liability.
8 Dec 2022

SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA PENCELAH Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN)

Citation

WA-25-87-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-87-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was refused because the Minister had made no decision or clear refusal to decide, mandamus cannot compel exercise of the discretionary powers in ss135 and 127(3A) ITA, the proper remedy for challenging assessments is appeal to the Special Commissioners, and therefore no arguable case was shown for judicial review reliefs sought.

Malaysia Case Law

KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA Hong Leong Yamaha Motor Sdn Bhd

YAYASAN BUAH PINGGANG KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Maxis Broadband Sdn. Bhd. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA PENCELAH Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN)