Kerajaan Malaysia v ZAILAN BIN MOHAMED (WA-21NCvC-37-05/2023)

Permohonan ini difailkan oleh Plaintif di bawah Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 (Akta 53) bagi mendapatkan penghakiman terus menurut Aturan 14 Kaedah 1, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KM 2012) ke atas Defendan untuk jumlah sebanyak RM2,241,660.92 termasuk faedah pada kadar 5% setahun atas jumlah RM2,241,660.92 dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh realisasi dan juga kos (Lampiran 8). 08/01/2024 22:58:35 WA-21NCvC-37-05/2023 Kand. 25 S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2

Ini adalah tuntutan bagi cukai yang telah ditaksir tetapi gagal dibayar oleh Defendan. Bagi tahun Taksiran 2017, 2018 dan 2019, Defendan telah ditaksir dengan taksiran masing–masing berjumlah RM953,324.93, RM708,359.23 dan RM376,189.41 melalui Notis-notis Taksiran yang kesemuanya bertarikh 28.12.2022 (Notis-notis Taksiran).

Notis-notis Taksiran tersebut telah disampaikan secara Kediri kepada Defendan pada 30.12.2022 dan diakui penerimaannya. Oleh yang demikian Notis-notis Taksiran tersebut disifatkan sebagai telah dengan sempurnanya disampaikan kepada Defendan menurut seksyen 145 Akta 53.

Oleh kerana Defendan telah gagal membayar keseluruhan cukai pendapatan dalam tempoh 30 hari yang ditetapkan di bawah seksyen 103 Akta 53, maka kenaikan cukai sebanyak 10% berjumlah RM95,332.49, RM70,835.92 dan RM37,618.94 (Kenaikan 10%) telah dikenakan dan ditambahkan ke atas keseluruhan cukai pendapatan bagi Tahun Taksiran 2017, 2018 dan 2019 (Tahun Taksiran) yang masih belum dibayar tersebut. S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 ANALISIS DAN DAPATAN [5] Undang-undang mengenai Penghakiman Terus diperuntukkan menurut Aturan 14 KM 2012. Bagi kes-kes berkaitan percukaian terutamanya di bawah Akta 53, prinsip undang-undang yang terpakai adalah jelas iaitu bagi prosiding yang dimulakan di bawah Aturan 14 KM 2012, isu-isu yang boleh dibicarakan yang biasanya boleh dibangkitkan di dalam kes-kes penghakiman terus adalah tidak terpakai untuk menuntut cukai yang kena dibayar di bawah Akta 53. Ini sepertimana diperuntukkan menurut seksyen 106 Akta 53 dan kes-kes seperti Choong Woo Yit v Government of Malaysia [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 9; [1989] 1 MLJ 473 (SC) dan Government of Malaysia v. Abdul Rahman [1975] 1 MLJ 276 (HC).

Untuk lebih jelas, seksyen 106 Akta 53 telah memperuntukkan- “Section 106- Recovery by suit.

Tax due and payable may be recovered by the Government by civil proceedings as a debt due to the Government.

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 Act 1956 [Act 359], in respect of all proceedings under this section.

In any proceedings under this section the court S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw 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 103(3), (5) or (7)”. [7] Oleh itu, adalah jelas bahawa seksyen 106(3) Akta 53 memperuntukkan bahawa prosiding yang dimulakan oleh Kerajaan Malaysia di bawah seksyen 106(1) Akta 53 untuk mendapatkan cukai melalui prosiding sivil adalah merupakan tuntutan hutang dan mahkamah tidak akan mempertimbangkan pembelaan yang menyatakan bahawa jumlah cukai yang dituntut sebagai keterlaluan, ditaksir secara salah, sedang dalam rayuan atau dikenakan amaun tambahan secara salah menurut seksyen 103(4) atau (5) Akta 53. [8] Tidak dipertikaikan bahawa tuntutan Plaintif adalah berasaskan tuntutan cukai yang tertunggak, terhutang dan kena dibayar kepada Kerajaan Malaysia menurut Akta 53. Ini jelas melalui fakta kes ini yang dirujuk. [9] Selain itu, Notis-notis Taksiran telah disampaikan secara sempurna kepada Defendan (Ekshibit MNI-2) dan Defendan telah akui penerimaan berdasarkan perenggan 9 Afidavit Jawapan Defendan yang diikrarkan pada 23.08.2023. Oleh itu seksyen 145(1) Akta 53 telah dipatuhi. S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw [10] Seterusnya seksyen 103(2) Akta 53 menyatakan seperti berikut - “(2) Where an assessment is made under subsection 90(3), 91, 92 or 96A, or where an assessment is increased under subsection 101(2), the tax payable under the assessment or increased assessment shall, on the service of the notice of assessment or composite assessment or increased assessment, as the case may be, be due and payable on the person assessed at the place specified in that notice whether or not that person appeals against the assessment or increased assessment.” [11] Berdasarkan peruntukan ini, di dalam kes Choong Woo Yit v Government of Malaysia (1989) 1 CLJ (Rep) 9; [1989] 1 MLJ 473, Mahkamah Agung telah memutuskan - “... [2] On service of a notice of assessment on the person assessed, the tax payable under the assessment becomes due and payable whether or not the person appeals against the assessment and would be recovered by the Government by civil proceedings as a debt due to the Government. [3] On such civil proceedings being brought by the Government, the Court unlike the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, 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.” (Penekanan diberikan) S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw [12] Selanjutnya berdasarkan seksyen 103(5) Akta 53 dan merujuk kes Government of Malaysia v. Abdul Rahman [1975] 1 MLJ 276 yang telah memutuskan:- “Since the amount was not paid within thirty days further penalties were added and since that was not paid civil proceedings were brought to recover the tax as a debt due to the government.” [13] Berkaitan hujahan Defendan bahawa isu berkenaan taksiran sepatutnya didengar oleh Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan (PKCP) dan Mahkamah bukanlah korum yang sesuai untuk memutuskan sebarang isu berkenaan taksiran, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa seksyen 106(3) Akta 53 adalah terpakai dan oleh itu, hujahan Defendan tidak wajar dipertimbangkan. [14] Selain itu, Plaintif juga telah mengeluarkan suatu perakuan di bawah seksyen 142(1) Akta 53 (Ekshibit MNI-4). Seksyen 142(1) Akta 53 menyatakan seperti berikut – ”(1) In a suit under section 106 the production of a certificate signed by the Director General giving the name and address of the defendant and the amount of tax due from him shall be sufficient S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw evidence of the amount so due and sufficient authority for the court to give judgement for that amount.” (Penekanan ditambah) [15] Hal ini juga telah diperjelaskan dalam kes Sun Man Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Government of Malaysia [1973] 2 MLJ 163 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan- ”... if a suit was brought under section 106 of the Act a certificate signed by the Director-General that the defendat was the person from whom the tax was due and if the certificate gave the amount of the tax to be due, then such a certificate ”shall be sufficent evidence of the amount so due and sufficent authority to give judgment for that amount.” the amount specified in the certificate was so consequently prima facies evidence taht the amount claimed by the plaintiff was the amount due from the defendant.” (Penekanan ditambah) [16] Oleh yang demikian, Perakuan di bawah Seksyen 142(1) Akta 53 adalah menjadi bukti dan keterangan yang mencukupi untuk memberikan penghakiman kepada Plaintif bagi amaun yang dinyatakan di dalam sijil tersebut. S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw [17] Selanjutnya di dalam kes Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v. Government of Malaysia [2023] 1 LNS 2063; [2023] MLJU 2283, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan- ”[171] .......the judgment obtained under section 106 using the summary judgment procedure, does not have a rights-determining or liability-determining character, as it merely allows for recovery first for the purpose of enforcement or execution....... [172] Even if a summary judgment procedure is adopted, the curtailing of the defences available as provided for in section 106(3) ITA and arguably, section 103(1) ITA and 103B ITA, means that the issues there remain unavailable for adjudication by the Court. This is because those matters would still comprise the subject matter of any appeal under section 99(1) ITA. ” [18] Defendan turut berhujah bahawa seksyen 106 Akta 53 adalah bertentangan dengan Perkara 5(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang dibaca bersama dengan Perkara 8(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. [19] Mahkamah tidak dapat bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan. Ini berdasarkan kes Mahkamah Persekutuan, Arumugam Pillai lwn S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw Government of Malaysia [1975] 2 MLJ 29 (FC) yang memutuskan- “The major ground of appeal is that the learned judge erred in law on the construction of the term "in accordance with law" in Article 13(1) of the Constitution of Malaysia. In my judgment this ground is equally untenable. So far as the power of taxation is concerned, the Constitution recognizes no fundamental right to immunity from taxation and that is presumably the reason why no constitutional protection is provided against the exercise of that power. Taxation is an independent power of the State. The result is that whenever a competent Legislature enacts a law in the exercise of any of its legislative powers, destroying or otherwise depriving a man of his property, the latter is precluded from questioning its reasonableness by invoking Article 13(1) of the Constitution, however arbitrary the law might palpably be. There is indeed nothing arbitrary about imposing income tax for the purpose of raising revenue. It is contended for the appellant that he does not complain about taxation as such but about the method of recovery of such tax. So long as the method of recovery is laid down by the law, I do not see how it can be challenged. Indeed, the law does provide for an appeal against taxation to a separate tribunal from which there is further right of appeal to the High Court by way of a case stated.” [20] Hal ini telah ditegaskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v. Government Of Malaysia & Another Appeal [2023] 10 CLJ 329- “Held:…

Section 106(3) of the ITA could not be viewed as abrogating, suspending or removing judicial powers S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw because the court is only facilitating collection and recovery under the ITA. It is not exercising its full judicial powers of hearing, adjudication or determination which arise under the dispute adjudication system stipulated in Part VI, s. 2, Appeals under the ITA…” [21] Oleh itu Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa tindakan pemungutan cukai melalui prosiding sivil yang dimulakan Plaintif ini adalah tidak bertentangan dengan Perlembangaan Persekutuan berdasarkan kes Mohd Najib (supra). KESIMPULAN [22] Permohonan Plaintif untuk Lampiran 8 dibenarkan dgn kos. (DR. SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN NCVC 1 MAHKAMAH TINGGI KUALA LUMPUR Tarikh: 8 Januari 2024 S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw PEGUAM PIHAK-PIHAK PLAINTIF Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia Cawangan Guaman Lembah Klang Tingkat G, 1 – 4, Blok 10, Kompleks Bangunan Kerajaan 50600 Kuala Lumpur. DEFENDAN Messrs. Zailan & Associates No. 9 - 1, Jalan 45/26, Taman Sri Rampai, 53300 Setapak Kuala Lumpur. S/N dSHueBaU0Es3hNl2Ly7cw