WA-21NCvC-142-09/2021
High Court of Malaysia20 Jun 2022
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“3. The Plaintiff is the Government of Malaysia whereas the Defendant is a limited liability incorporated company under the Companies Act 2016.”
“(2) The Director General and all authorized officers shall be deemed to be public officers authorized by the Minister under subsection 25(1) of the Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956, in respect of all proceedings under this section.”
“7. The provisions of the Income Tax Act 1967 (“the Act”) is clear as to a claim by the Plaintiff for the non-payment of the income tax. Section 106 of the Act provides as follows:”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Content
1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA BAHAGIAN SIVIL NO. GUAMAN SIVIL : WA-21NCVC-142-09/2021 ANTARA KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …PLAINTIF DAN ASM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI SOBENA MAJU SDN BHD) (198401002158 (114673-D)) ...DEFENDAN JUDGMENT
1
The Plaintiff applied for summary judgement under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) for a claim for arrears of income tax to the amount of RM11,053,406.65 owed by the Defendant.
2
Order 14 (1) of the Rules states as follows:
1
Application by plaintiff for summary judgment (O. 14 r. 1)
1
Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular 25/08/2022 07:49:55 WA-21NCvC-142-09/2021 Kand. 25 part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant. The Brief Facts
3
The Plaintiff is the Government of Malaysia whereas the Defendant is a limited liability incorporated company under the Companies Act 2016.
4
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is for non-payment of income tax for the years 2014 and 2015 as assessed by the Plaintiff and for which a notice for the amount unpaid was delivered to the Defendant.
5
For an application under Order 144 of the Rules the only issue for consideration by the Court is whether the Defendant has any defense to the Plaintiff’s claim.
6
The Defendant’s only defense to the Plaintiff’s claim if the Statement of Defense is to be perused is a bare denial of the sum owed as well as to ask for reconsideration of the penalties imposed for the late payment by the Plaintiff, citing hardship faced by the Defendant due to the Covid pandemic.
7
The provisions of the Income Tax Act 1967 (“the Act”) is clear as to a claim by the Plaintiff for the non-payment of the income tax. Section 106 of the Act provides as follows:
1
Tax due and payable may be recovered by the Government by civil proceedings as a debt due to the Government.
2
The Director General and all authorized officers shall be deemed to be public officers authorized by the Minister under subsection 25(1) of the Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956, in respect of all proceedings under this section.
3
In any proceedings under this section the court shall not entertain any plea that the amount of tax sought to be recovered is excessive, incorrectly assessed, under appeal or incorrectly increased under subsection subsection 103(3), (5) or (7).
8
In short looking at the Statement of Defense of the Defendant there is absolutely no defense to the Plaintiff’s claim.
9
In the upshot the Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgement against the Defendant with a cost of RM3,000. Dated: 24.8.2022 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia Cawangan Guaman Kuala Lumpur Blok 10 Tingkat 1 Kanan Kompleks Bangunan Kerajaan Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim 50600 Kuala Lumpur For the Defendant: Tetuan CCA (Chooi & Company + Cheang + Ariff) 39 Court @ Loke Mansion 273A Jalan Medan Tuanku 50300 Kuala Lumpur
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.