Kerajaan Malaysia v Instedt (M) Sdn Bhd (JA-21NCVC-4-01/2020)

By leaving a copy of it at the registered office (if any) of the corporation;

By sending a copy of it by registered post addressed to the corporation at the office, or, if there are more offices than one 3 at the principal office of the corporation, whether such office is situated within Malaysia or elsewhere;

By handling a copy of it to the secretary or to any director or other officer of the corporation; or ... …” [6] A perusal of the provision would show that service may be effected by any one of the methods stipulated. Here it had been served by leaving a copy at the registered address which was Menara Landmark where the Company Secretary had acknowledged service. If the Plaintiff had elected for the method in O 62 R4(1)(b), this will be by sending a copy addressed to the corporation at the office or if there are more offices than one at the principal office, then to that office. But this provision does not preclude the Plaintiff from serving by leaving on the registered address. Hence the service was regular and in accordance with O 62 R4(1)(a). [7] It was not relevant that the Company Secretary who received it did not pass on the documents to the Defendant or even informed it. The same too goes for the argument that the Defendant had not authorised anyone to receive cause papers or that the scope of work of the Company Secretary was only limited to matters within the Companies Act 2016. What is relevant is that service had been duly effected in accordance with RC 2012. [8] The Defendant had referred to CIMB Bank Bhd v Comsa Layer Farms Sdn Bhd & Anor [2009] 8 MLRH 1 which in turn referred to Lee Boon Fatt v Takhdir Trading Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLHR 491. At page 8 it was stated as follows- “… From the Lee Boon Fatt case (supra) this can be further derived, that if a Company seeks to put into public records, in this case the Companies Commission that its business address is at a certain address then such 4 specified business address is self evident that it cannot be but otherwise then to be treated as its principal place of business. I would go further to add that such address specified as business address lodged with the Companies Commission will also be deemed to be its principal office for the purpose of Order 62 r 4(1)(b) RHC. …”. [9] Lee Boon Fatt (supra) dealt with service under O 62 R 4(1)(b) where it was stated if there are more offices than one, service to the principal place of business would be to the business address. However this instant case deals with service under O 62 R4(1)(a). Defence on merits [10] Although the Defendant in its affidavit of support stated it had a defence on merits, no draft proposed defence was exhibited nor mentioned in the affidavit of support. In fact it was not addressed in its submission. [11] In any event, the Court has considered this issue. As stated by the Federal Court, the Federal Count in Arumugam Pillai v. Government of Malaysia [1975] 2 MLJ 29 stated at page 30- “… that there is string of decided cases in which it has been held that the effect of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act is that on the service of a notice of assessment on the person assessed the tax payable under the assessment becomes due and payable at the place specified in the notice, whether or not the person appeals against the assessment, which can then be recovered by the Government by civil proceedings as a debt due to the Government and that on such civil proceedings being brought by the Government the court has no power to entertain any plea that the amount of tax sought to be recovered is excessive, incorrectly assessed, under appeal or incorrectly increased. …”. 5 [12] Here the Notices of Assessment for 2010 to 2016 have been served, as evident from exhibit SES-4. Once served, the income tax assessed is due and payable Settlement agreement [13] The Plaintiff had also raised the issue the settlement agreement dated 29-8-2019 as per exhibit SES-5 had not been complied with. Such a submission is not relevant to setting aside of JID. Conclusion [14] For the above reasons on service being regular and no defence on merits, the Defendant’s application to set aside JID was dismissed. Dated: 27th September 2020 t.t See Mee Chun Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru Counsel for the Plaintiff Mr Norhalim Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia Johor Bahru Counsel for the Defendant Ms Nurshuhadah Tetuan Raihan & Co.