Kuantan Waterfront Resort City Sdn Bhd v PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM (BA-24NCvC-981-05/2025)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO.: BA-24NCvC-981-05/2025 Dalam perkara suatu keputusan Responden di bawah Seksyen 38A(5) Akta Setem 1949 yang terkandung di dalam Notis Taksiran Pindah Milik Harta Tanah (Duti Kekal Selepas Rayuan) yang bertarikh 14.3.2025, dan yang dimaklumkan kepada Perayu melalui emel Responden bertarikh 17 April 2025; Dan Dalam perkara suatu Notis Taksiran Pindah Milik Harta Tanah (Duti Ad Valorem) yang bertarikh 4.2.2025; Dan Dalam perkara suatu rayuan di bawah Seksyen 39(1) Akta Setem 1949 bagi, 24/12/2025 09:31:39 BA-24NCvC-981-05/2025 Kand. 29 antara lain, suatu perintah di bawah Seksyen 39(4) Akta Setem 1949; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 55A Kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. ANTARA KUANTAN WATERFRONT RESORT CITY SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 202301048723 (1542637-U) ... PERAYU DAN PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM …DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Schedule

Jadual Pertama Akta Setem 1949, mahkamah selanjutnya memutuskan sebagai perintah susulan bahawa Notis Taksiran bertarikh 04.02.2025 yang mengenakan duti nominal RM10.00 dibatalkan dan bayaran yang dibuat oleh Perayu bagi Notis Taksiran tersebut dikembalikan kepada Perayu.” LEGAL ISSUES PROPOSED BY THE APPELLANT WITH TWO ADDITIONAL ISSUES ISSUE 1: “Sama ada JVA bertarikh 21.12.2023 tersebut hendaklah dikenakan duti ad valorem di bawah Butiran 32(a), Jadual Pertama Akta Setem 1949 ataupun duti nominal di bawah Butiran 4 Jadual yang sama.” ISSUE 2 (Additional Issue): “Sama ada tindakan Responden mengeluarkan Notis Taksiran Duti Ad Valorem bertarikh 04.02 2025 bercanggah dengan prinsip jangkaan sah Peravu,” ISSUE 3 (Additional Issue): “Sama ada Responden mempunyal kuasa undang-undang untuk mengeluarkan taksiran tambahan melalui Notis Taksiran Duti Ad Valorem bertarikh 04.02.2025.” ISSUE 4: “Sekiranya Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini memutuskan bahawa JVA tersebut dikenakan duti ad valorem di bawah Butiran 32(a),

Schedule

Jadual Pertama Akta Setem 1949, mahkamah selanjutnya memutuskan sebagai perintah susulan bahawa Notis Taksiran bertarikh 04.02.2025 yang mengenakan duti nominal RM10.00 dibatalkan dan bayaran yang dibuat oleh Perayu bagi Notis Taksiran tersebut dikembalikan kepada Perayu.” ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 8. Two issues arise for Court’s determination are as follow: (a) Whether section 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 obliges the Collector to include all facts or issues proposed by the Appellant; and (b) Whether the Case Stated is defective for omitting such matters. 9. These issues concern statutory interpretation and procedural compliance. The Court must address these issues without examining the substantive merits of the assessment. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 10. Section 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 requires the Collector to state and sign a case “setting forth the question upon which his opinion was required, and the decision made by him.” The statutory focus is on the identification of the legal question and the Collector’s decision. No provision requires inclusion of all matters that the taxpayer wishes to raise. 11. In the High Court case of Cold Storage (M) Bhd v Pemungut Duti Setem [1987] CLJ (Rep) 552, it was held as follows: “… There is no reason why the Collector cannot himself state and sign the case. The question was before him and it is his judgment under s. 36 that is being appealed against s. 39. The correct procedure for appeals from the Collector to the High Court is as follows: (a) Within 21 days of the date of the assessment and on payment of duty, file Notice of Appeal with the Collector. (b) Appellant requires Collector to state and sign a Case. (c) Collector states and signs Case and delivers it to appellant. (d) Within 7 days of receipt of the Case Stated, the appellant files Originating Motion in the High Court under RHC O. 55 r. 13.” 12. Section 39(3) of the Stamp Act 1949 provides that the High Court determines the legal question submitted. In Pemungut Duti Setem v Lee Koy Eng & Another Appeal [2022] 6 MLRA 209, the Federal Court held that the High Court's sole function in a case stated is to deal with the question of law posed. The case stated procedure does not involve the High Court making any inquiry as to facts. The facts would be as found by the Collector and as stated. 13. In the grounds of judgment dated 13 May 2013 of Malaysian Allied Health Sciences Academy Sdn Bhd v Pemugut Duti Setem (Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman No. 25-214- 09/2012), the High Court recognized that a case stated is not a negotiated document. Its purpose is to set out the essential legal dispute for the Court’s review. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 14. The Court finds no merit in the Appellant’s contention that the Collector was obliged to include all proposed amendments. Section 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 imposes no such requirement. The taxpayer cannot dictate the contents of the Case Stated. 15. The Collector fulfilled its statutory duty by identifying the operative legal question: the proper duty chargeable on the instrument. This is the central question the Court must determine under section 39(3) of the Stamp Act 1949. The omission of the Appellant’s preferred issues does not affect the procedural validity of the Case Stated. 16. The Case Stated contains adequate factual material to explain the nature of the adjudicated instrument and the Collector’s decision. Consistent with Malaysian Allied Health Sciences Academy Sdn Bhd v Pemugut Duti Setem (Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman No. 25-214-09/2012), the Case Stated need not adopt the taxpayer’s preferred framing. There is no requirement for the Collector to consult the Appellant. 17. Section 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 does not require the Collector to include every issue proposed by the Appellant. The phrase “the question upon which his opinion was required” refers to the Collector’s statutory opinion formed under section 38A (5) of the Stamp Act 1949. 18. The Appellant’s proposed issues—including legitimate expectation and vires—did not arise from the Collector’s decision and lie outside the statutory remit. The Collector was not empowered to determine those matters. Therefore, they cannot be compelled into the Case Stated. 19. Section 39(3) of the Stamp Act 1949 restricts the High Court to determining “the question submitted”. Importing administrative law doctrines into a section 39 appeal would collapse the distinction between a statutory appeal and judicial review. 20. The two issues approved by the Respondent correctly reflect the legal question arising from the Collector’s decision under section 38A (5): whether the Joint Venture Agreement is chargeable under Item 32(a) or Item 4. This is fully compliant with the statutory scheme. 21. Legitimate expectation and vires arguments belong under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, not in a Case Stated appeal. Even where legitimate expectation was considered in stamp duty contexts (see Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd (PCSB) v Pemungut Duti Setem [2023] MLJU 639), it does not extend the statutory structure of section 39 of the Stamp Act 1949. 22. No breach of natural justice occurred. The Collector is not adjudicating the appeal. The High Court is. Both parties have been fully heard here. Natural justice does not require the Collector to exceed statutory limits. 23. For these reasons, the Court agrees with the Respondent’s Case Stated. It accurately reflects the statutory question arising from the Collector's decision and complies with binding authority. 24. The Court concludes that the Case Stated is procedurally regular and compliant with Section 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949. The Preliminary Objection is accordingly dismissed. CONCLUSION 25. The Case Stated dated 20 August 2025 satisfies statutory requirements. The omissions complained of do not constitute procedural defects. The Preliminary Objection is dismissed, with costs following the event. Dated 22 December 2025 -sgd-DATO’ ANITA BINTI HARUN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN To the parties’ solicitors: For the Appellant : Ivy Ling Yieng Ping & Charlene Woon Zi Xuan (Messrs Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill) For the Defendants : Mohd Harris Bin Hanapi & Munirah Bt Abdul Wahid (Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN) (Cyberjaya))