no delay by the applicant in applying for a stay. [7] It was further submitted by the applicant that there is a possibility that the respondent might invoke its powers to demand payment which may prevent the applicant from leaving the country should the sum not be paid. S/N cCkoMli2kylFrcmVaO5uA Respondent’s submissions [8] In response to the applicant’s submissions, learned revenue counsel argued that the application for interim stay amounted to an injunction against the respondent in discharging the respondent’s statutory duty conferred and provided under Income Tax Act 1967 (“ITA 1967”). [9] Pertaining to stay, the learned revenue counsel submitted that with effect from 1 January 2021, Section 103B of the ITA 1967 has been inserted to the ITA 1967 by virtue of Section 20 of the Finance Act 2020 (Act 831). [10] What this entails, according to learned revenue counsel is that tax payable is required to be paid although there is a proceeding filed in court by the taxpayer. Moreover, it was submitted that while section 103B of the ITA 1967 is a newly enacted provision, the principle that liability to pay tax subsists once the notice of assessment is served is not new. [11] In this regard, reference was made to the handsard dated 16 December 2020 when the Bill was tabled at Parliament: “Yang Berhormat Jelebu juga bangkitkan isu berkenaan stakeholders. Untuk makluman Yang Berhormat, peruntukan baharu seksyen 103B yang ingin diperkenalkan ini juga pada prinsipnya tidak menghalang pembayar cukai untuk mempertikaikan keabsahan taksiran cukai di mahkamah. Apa yang ingin ditekankan ialah cukai perlu terlebih dahulu dibayar walaupun cukai dipertikaikan. S/N cCkoMli2kylFrcmVaO5uA Konsep pay first, dengan izin, yang diamalkan di negara ini bukanlah satu perkara yang baharu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua dan Yang Berhormat Jelebu. Sejak Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 diperkenalkan mulai tahun taksiran 1968, negara telah pun mengamalkan kaedah dan proses kutipan seperti ini. Dari aspek dasar dan polisi percukaian, kaedah kutipan ini bertujuan memberi layanan cukai yang adil dan saksama antara kategori pembayar cukai yang patuh dan kategori yang ingin mempertikaikan taksiran. Adalah tidak saksama sekiranya pembayar cukai yang berhasrat untuk mencabar taksiran diberikan tempoh bayaran yang lebih panjang sehingga kesnya selesai. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sebenarnya juga keabsahan konsep pay first ini telah beberapa kali dicabar di mahkamah khususnya atas alasan ia mendahului kuasa mahkamah atau bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan. Ingin saya maklumkan di Dewanyang mulia ini bahawa keputusan mahkamah yang menjadi panduan atau precedent pada masa ini ialah konsep pay first yang kita amalkan tidak melanggar Perlembagaan dan peruntukan di bawah Perlembagaan atau mendahului mahkamah. Mahkamah berpendapat perkara yang utama ialah hak pembayar cukai untuk merayu atau mencabar taksiran hendaklah sentiasa dijamin di bawah undang-undang. Kaedah bila atau bagaimana bayaran cukai perlu dilaksanakan adalah perkara yang berasingan dan boleh diperuntukkan atau ditentukan di bawah undang-undang yang digubal oleh Parlimen. Secara ringkasnya, cadangan ini adalah wajar dan teratur untuk diluluskan di Dewan yang mulia ini.” S/N cCkoMli2kylFrcmVaO5uA [12] Learned revenue counsel then alluded to the Federal Court case of Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak & Anor v. Government of Malaysia and another appeal [2023] MLJU 2283. [13] Learned revenue counsel cited the Court of Appeal case of Ta Wu Realty Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Anor [2009] 1 MLJ 555 to support the contention that the duty of the taxpayer is to pay tax promptly regardless of any appeal or objection. [14] See also: Baddiaddin bin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysia Finance Berhad [1998] 1 MLJ 393; Kerajaan Malaysia v. Nooryana Najwa bt Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib [2020] 11 MLJ 242. [15] Regarding the applicant’s submission that there exist special circumstances to allow a stay, it was argued that the special circumstances did not exist in the applicant’s case. [16] In Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (Rayuan Sivil No. W-01(A)-684-12/2018) Aziziah J stated: “[36] I am of the considered opinion that since the subject matter of this case involves the payment of tax, there is no issue of the appeal being rendered nugatory. Any collection of tax from the Applicant can be refunded by the DGIR. Added to that, there cannot be any special circumstance in this case where the DGIR is empowered to collect taxes under the ITA 1967.” S/N cCkoMli2kylFrcmVaO5uA Analysis and Findings [17] To decide on this application for interim stay, this court considered the applicable law in this application for interim stay in income tax cases. [18] Section 103(1) of the ITA reads: “Except as provided in subsection (2), tax payable under an assessment for a year of assessment shall be due and payable on the due date whether or not that person appeals against the assessment.” [Emphasis added] [19] Section 103B of the ITA goes on to provide: “The institution of any proceedings under any other written law against the Government or the Director General shall not relieve any person from liability for the payment of any tax, debt or other sum for which he is or may be liable to pay under this Part.” [Emphasis added] [20] Section 106 (3) of the ITA states: “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 103(3), (5) or (7).” S/N cCkoMli2kylFrcmVaO5uA [21] Founded on the provisions of the ITA, it is apparent that any payment of tax should be made, regardless of the amount (excessive or otherwise) or if there are legal proceedings instituted. [22] This view is further fortified by the Federal Court decision in the case of Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak & Anor v. Government of Malaysia and another appeal [2023] MLJU 2283 where the court stated: “[6] The fact that the Act provides for a ‘Pay first, dispute later’ system is borne out inter alia, by section 103(1) ITA which provides that tax payable under an assessment for a year of assessment shall be due and payable on the due date whether or not that person appeals against the assessment, read together with section 103B ITA which provides that for the purposes of collection and recovery of taxes only, in Part VII of the ITA, the institution of any proceedings under any other written law against the Inland Revenue, does not absolve or exempt the taxpayer from making payment for the purposes of collection of tax pending the adjudication of the taxpayer’s dispute. [7] In other words, collection of tax by the Inland Revenue is accorded immediacy while the disputes raised by the taxpayer are deferred for adjudication to a later time. [8] And this is because once judgment is obtained summarily by the Inland Revenue, based on s. 106(1) of the ITA, as a debt recoverable by it against the taxpayer, it becomes incumbent upon the taxpayer, such as the appellants, to make the payment due to the Revenue first, while the dispute relating to any of the defences relating to quantum etc, proceed to resolution, first through the SCIT, and then the court, by way of an appeal on points of law. If the S/N cCkoMli2kylFrcmVaO5uA taxpayer is successful, the monies paid out by him, are then reimbursed to the taxpayer by the Inland Revenue under s. 111 of the ITA. … [61] It is clear therefore that the present incarnation of our ITA was enacted by the Legislature to facilitate the expeditious collection of Government revenue and to deter tactical attempts from would-be tax evaders to delay the payment of outstanding taxes. [65] As stated earlier, the ITA does not comprise s. 106(3) alone. That provision must be read together with the other provisions of the Act, for example s. 106 in its entirety, as well as the provisions of ss. 103 to 107 which fall within Part VII of the ITA entitled “Collection and Recovery of Tax”. [66] Section 106(1) states: Tax due and payable may be recovered by the Government by civil proceedings as a debt due to the Government. [67] The provisions in ss. 103 and 106 enable the Inland Revenue to ensure recovery of the tax assessed to be due by declaring it a statutory debt, or a debt due under s. of the ITA for purposes of collection and recovery only. This is unlike a contractual debt arising from a loan or financing etc. [68] In essence, under the system promulgated by the Parliament for the recovery and collection under Part VII of the ITA, once the tax is assessed by the DGIR, it has to be paid within a time fixed under the statute. If the taxpayer S/N cCkoMli2kylFrcmVaO5uA does not pay, the assessed sum becomes a ‘debt’ by virtue of s. 106 for purpose of recovery only. If the sum assessed to be a debt pursuant to s. 106(1) is not paid, then the Inland Revenue may initiate recovery proceedings to ensure collection of the debt. [69] In recovery proceedings, s. 106(3) comes into play. It expressly obviates certain pleas or ‘defences’ to the recovery of the debt under s. 106(1) by providing that: