The Tax Disputes and Litigation Review: Malaysia
The advent of the global pandemic and the resulting movement control orders have led to the introduction of short-term concessionary measures by the tax authorities. Such measures include the extension of deadlines for filing tax returns, deferment of tax payments and temporary suspension of tax recovery actions. As economic sectors reopen and covid-19 fatigue gradually settles in, however, it has been back to business as usual for tax audits and investigations.
The enactment of the Finance Act 2020 offers various tax breaks and reliefs to individuals (e.g., for vaccinations, medical expenses and reskilling courses). At the same time, however, amendments to the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) that have introduced, among other things, provisions allowing for a surcharge to be imposed on transfer pricing adjustments and additional restrictions on the claiming of certain deductions, reliefs and allowances have created cause for concern for corporate taxpayers.
The good news is that changes implemented previously through the Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2019 have appeared to result in increased expediency in the hearing and disposal of tax appeals. In particular, the ability of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) to hear appeals by a single Commissioner sitting alone is anticipated to enable more tax appeals to be heard and decided in the current year. Nevertheless, the backlog of cases accumulated in the previous year may result in some delay before such benefits can be fully felt.
In the past year, decided cases of interest include those outlined in the remainder of this section.
i High Court
The High Court (HC) held that expenditure incurred in the form of payments to state authorities for the release of Bumiputera properties to non-Bumiputera buyers are not penalties, and hence allowable for deduction under Section 33(1) ITA.2 The IRB, which has previously taken the position that such expenditure should not qualify for deduction, has filed an appeal against the HC's decision.
In the high-profile case initiated by the government of Malaysia against its former Primer Minister for recovery of unpaid taxes, the HC dismissed the taxpayer's application for a stay,3 and further granted summary judgment on the basis that there is no triable issue.4 The court held that it is precluded by the ITA from entertaining any plea that the taxes sought are excessive or incorrectly assessed. In another decision, the HC also rejected an application by the taxpayer for the civil recovery proceedings to be stayed pending the determination by the Federal Court (FC) on the constitutionality of the ITA provisions, as this would otherwise open the floodgates to all taxpayers to do so.5 The government's application for summary judgment was rejected in this case.
ii Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal (COA) held that the jurisdiction of the tax authorities should be construed narrowly in a customs matter, and that the Customs Act 1967 does not empower the Director General of Customs to impose additional conditions after a duty-free licence has been issued.6 The COA granted a judicial review application against a decision by the Director General of Customs to reject a special refund application under the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014.7 Importantly, the court held that there may be a duty to give reason by the tax authorities in the particular circumstances of the case, and that the absence of a specific provision in the legislation imposing such a duty does not mean that no reasons need be given.
The FC held that an advance ruling issued by the IRB under Section 138B ITA does not amount to a decision amenable to judicial review, taking the view that the taxpayer had not been adversely affected until a tax assessment is issued.8
i Income tax
The self-assessment system
The self-assessment system has been implemented in Malaysia respectively since 2001 for companies, and 2004 for businesses, partnerships, cooperatives and salaried individuals. Under the previous official assessment system, taxpayers would be assessed for income tax under the ITA by the IRB pursuant to the tax returns they file. By contrast, taxpayers under the self-assessment system would file their tax returns based on computations of their own tax liability, resulting in deemed assessments and payment of taxes accordingly.
To ensure compliance and to avoid tax leakages under the self-assessment system, the IRB is equipped with wide powers by the ITA. Among others, Sections 78 to 81 of the ITA grants the Director General of Inland Revenue (DGIR) the power to call for specific returns and production of books, statement of bank accounts, access to buildings and documents and for all such information that may be relevant. Armed with such powers, audits are carried out by the IRB on a post-assessment basis, including desk audits (from the IRB's office) and field audits (at the taxpayer's premises with prior notice). The IRB periodically issues its Tax Audit Framework, which sets out its stated practice and procedure in carrying out audits.9
Preliminary findings letters are issued to taxpayers who would usually be afforded a chance to respond to any issues raised. Audits are concluded with a final audit findings letter pursuant to which taxpayers can choose to sign a letter of acknowledgment of the IRB's position and to pay. Where taxpayers decline to do so, notices of assessment (Forms J) or notices of additional assessment (Forms JA) will be issued in respect of such taxes alleged to have been underpaid. Section 91 ITA only allows assessments to be raised within a period of five years after a year of assessment (YA), except in circumstances of fraud or wilful default of negligence. In practice, time-barred assessments are common as the IRB appears to adopt the view that negligence exists where taxpayers' tax treatment differ from their own.
There are two ways for taxpayers to dispute tax assessments by the IRB: an appeal to the SCIT or a judicial review.
A taxpayer aggrieved by an assessment raised against him or her can file a notice of appeal (Form Q) to the SCIT together with the grounds of the appeal within 30 days from the date of service of the assessment upon him or her. Upon receipt of the Form Q, the DGIR has a 12-month review period during which dispute resolution proceedings (DRP) will be conducted to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Such proceedings can result in an agreement under Section 101(2) between the DGIR and the taxpayer on the proper amount of taxes payable.
If no agreement is reached during the review period, the Form Q will be forwarded to the SCIT for registration of the appeal. Case managements would be conducted, during which directions are given for the filing of cause papers and for a hearing date to be fixed. In recent times, it is common for hearing dates to be fixed two to three years after registration because of the high number of appeals pending. An appeal may be heard by either a panel of three Special Commissioners, or a single Commissioner sitting alone if this is deemed by the Chairman of the SCIT to be in the interest of achieving the expeditious and efficient conduct of the appeal.10 At any time before completion of the hearing, the taxpayer may still arrive at an agreement for settlement with the DGIR that can be recorded before the SCIT. Where there is no settlement, the SCIT will hear the case and give its deciding order for the assessments to be confirmed or discharged.
Parties dissatisfied with a deciding order may appeal to the HC on questions of law by filing a notice in writing with the Secretary of the SCIT within 21 days from the date of the SCIT's decision. A copy of the notice must be extended to the Registry of the HC and served upon all other parties to the proceedings. The appellant must also apply in writing to the Secretary for the notes of proceedings and grounds of decision. Appellants are required to prepare records of appeal.11 Upon hearing and determining the question of law in such an appeal, the HC may, among others, order such assessments to be confirmed, discharged or amended. Parties dissatisfied with the HC's decision have a further right of appeal to the COA. A taxpayer cannot appeal to the FC for a matter originating at the SCIT.
Under certain circumstances, a taxpayer may also file a judicial review application at the HC12 to challenge a tax assessment.
Taxpayers cannot commence judicial review as of right but must first obtain leave of the court to so. The threshold for leave to be granted is ordinarily low and will be satisfied where it is proven that the application is not frivolous. Even where an alternative remedy exists in the form of a SCIT appeal, the courts have held that taxpayers would not be barred from judicial review so long as exceptional circumstances are proven. The three categories of exceptional circumstances are a clear lack of jurisdiction, blatant failure to perform some statutory duty and a serious breach of the principles of natural justice.13 Decisions of the HC in judicial review proceedings are appealable up to the FC.
Judicial review is unsuitable where there are factual disputes, which should be resolved by the SCIT as the tribunal of fact. Judicial sentiment on the role of judicial review in challenging abuses of power is perhaps best reflected in the FC's recent pronouncement in the landmark case of Indira Gandhi that 'the boundaries of the exercise of powers conferred by legislation is solely for the determination by the courts' and that 'if an exercise of power under a statute exceeds the four corners of that statute, it would be ultra vires and a court of law must be able to hold it as such'.14
However, the courts have also dismissed judicial review applications where it was held that exceptional circumstances did not exist.15 Taxpayers intending to pursue judicial review should thus obtain legal advice at the earliest opportunity to evaluate whether this is suitable.
Stay or payment
Once an assessment is raised, taxes are ordinarily due and payable whether or not an appeal is made.16 Payments have to be made within 30 days of service of the notice of assessment upon the taxpayer, failing which the amount of taxes unpaid shall be increased by an amount of 10 per cent.17
Unlike the HC, the SCIT does not have the power to grant a stay of the effect of tax assessments raised by the IRB. Where payment has not been made and the courts have not granted a stay, the government of Malaysia may commence civil recovery proceedings against the taxpayer to seek recovery of such taxes as a debt due to the government.18
However, taxpayers may still be able to obtain a stay of the civil recovery proceedings if special circumstances can be proven. The courts have held that Sections 103 and 106 ITA do not prevent the court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay where special circumstances exist.19 The COA has previously confirmed this in Berjaya Times Square.20 However, recent decisions such as that by the HC in Government of Malaysia v. Mohd Najib Haji Abd Razak  1 LNS 523 indicates that the court's discretion to grant a stay would be exercised sparingly.
ii Goods and services tax
The Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 (GST Act 2014) had been repealed in 2018 by the Goods and Services Tax (Repeal) Act 2018 (GST Repeal Act 2018). For completion's sake, this chapter will briefly address common issues in goods and services tax (GST) appeals as there are still such appeals pending resolution.
Under the GST regime, taxable persons have to furnish returns on a monthly or quarterly basis depending on the total amount of their taxable turnover.21 Where such returns have not been filed or contain incorrect information, best judgment assessments22 may be issued by the Director General of Customs (DGOC) against the taxable person.
A person dissatisfied with any decision by a GST officer may make an application for review to the DGOC within 30 days upon notification of the decision.23 The DGOC will arrive at his or her decision within 60 days of receiving the application or within any such practicable time. In practice, decisions on such applications can generally be expected within six months.
A person dissatisfied with the DGOC's decision may file an appeal to the GST Tribunal within 30 days after the decision has been communicated.24 The hearing will be conducted before a single tribunal member of a panel of three members, and the appellant may opt to be self-represented or by any representatives he or she may wish to appoint.25 Decisions of the GST Tribunal can be appealed to the HC,26 which can then be further appealed to the COA.
After the GST Act 2014 was abolished by the GST Repeal Act 2018, pending appeals at the GST Tribunal will now be heard by the Customs Appeal Tribunal (Customs Tribunal).27
Decisions of the Customs Tribunal are deemed to be an order of a Sessions Court and enforceable as such.28 Parties dissatisfied with the Customs Tribunal's decision may appeal to the HC on a question of law or of mixed law and fact,29 and there is a further right of appeal to the COA.
iii Sales and service tax
The process for filing returns, and the raising of and appeals against assessments is similar under the Sales Tax Act 2018 and Service Tax Act 2018 regimes.
Taxable persons must file their returns by the last day of the month following the end of the taxable period to which the return relates.30 Where such returns have not been furnished or contain incomplete or incorrect information, or where a taxable person has failed to apply to be registered as such, best judgment assessments may be raised by the DGOC against him or her.31
A person aggrieved by the DGOC's decision may make an application for review to the DGOC within 30 days after being notified of such decision. The DGOC will then review his or her decision and decide on the application within 60 days after receiving such application, where practicable.32 In practice, it is anticipated that applicants would wait up to six months for the DGOC's decision on such applications.
The DGOC's decision on an application for review may be appealed to the Customs Appeal Tribunal in writing within 30 days after the decision is communicated to the taxable person. The legal effect of the Customs Tribunal's decision, and the appeal process have been dealt with in Section II.ii.
The courts and tribunals
i The SCIT
The SCIT is an institution created by the ITA 1967 that prescribes for a minimum of three Commissioners. Appointment of the Commissioners is by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the Ruler) and their tenure, remuneration and allowance are as determined by the Minister of Finance (MoF).33 The procedure for hearings at the SCIT and their powers are stipulated under Schedule 5 of the ITA 1967.
SCIT appeals are usually heard before a panel of three Commissioners with at least one having judicial or other legal experience. Effective 31 December 2019, appeals may be heard a Special Commissioner sitting alone if deemed expeditious and efficient by the Chairman. Two or more appeals may be heard concurrently, and taxpayers may be represented by either an advocate or tax agent or both during the hearing. Subject to the ITA, the SCIT are also statutorily empowered to regulate their own procedure. Where not otherwise provided for, the procedure and practice at the subordinate court or the HC are to be adopted and applied with the necessary modifications.34
Practical and institutional improvements to the SCIT have been contemplated recently. To date, some changes have been implemented such as the amendment to allow for appeals to be heard by a Special Commissioner sitting alone. The Finance Minister's Budget 2020 speech previously stated that the SCIT and Customs Tribunal would be merged into the Tax Appeal Tribunal to improve the efficiency of management of taxpayer appeals beginning 2021.35 However, this amalgamation has not yet been brought about by the recently passed Finance Bill 2020.
ii GST Appeal Tribunal
The hearing of GST appeals pending at the now-defunct GST Tribunal have been taken over by the Customs Tribunal.
iii Customs Appeal Tribunal
The Customs Appeal Tribunal (the Customs Tribunal) was created by the CA 1967.36 The appointment of a chairman and a maximum of two deputy chairmen from members of the judicial and legal service is prescribed, together with a minimum of seven other members deemed to have sufficient knowledge of experience in customs or taxation matters. Tribunal members are appointed by the MoF, which also determines the terms, conditions and remuneration of the appointment.37
Tribunal hearings are heard before a panel of three members, but may be heard before a single tribunal member where deemed fit by the chairman in the interests of expediency and efficiency. Where a tribunal appeal has been lodged, the same issues cannot be raised between the same parties in another court38 unless the other proceedings have been commenced earlier or unless the tribunal appeal is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out. Through an amendment in 2018,39 advocates and solicitors who were previously not allowed to appear at the tribunal are now able to do so.
iv The HC, COA and FC
Appeals from the SCIT to the HC are made by way of filing a notice of appeal (see Section II.i) on questions of law. The HC in its role as an appellate court in such appeals would be slow to disturb fact findings by the SCIT, but may intervene where such findings have been wholly unsupported by facts or evidence.40 HC decisions can be appealed to the COA within 30 days of the HC's decision. COA appeals are heard and decided by a panel of three judges.
Appeals to the FC from COA decisions are possible in proceedings commenced by way of judicial review at the HC. Prospective appellants cannot appeal as of right but must first obtain leave to appeal from the FC through an application for leave filed within a month from the date of the COA's decision. For leave to be granted, applicants must satisfy the court that the question proposed to be answered involves a question of general principle decided for the first time, or a question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of the FC would be to public advantage.41 FC appeals are heard and decided by a panel of between five and 11 judges.
Penalties and remedies
The ITA imposes various responsibilities imposed on taxpayers and their principal officers. These obligations are enforced through offences and penalties in the form of fines and even imprisonment listed at Part VIII of the Act.42
Common offences include failure to furnish returns (fine of between 200 and 20,000 ringgit or imprisonment of up to six months, or both; a special penalty equal to treble the amount of taxes underpaid to which the failure relates can be imposed for failure to furnish returns for two YAs or more) and furnishing of incorrect returns (fine of between 1,000 and 10,000 ringgit and a special penalty of double the amount of taxes underpaid to which the failure relates). Where a taxpayer has not been prosecuted for the furnishing of incorrect returns, a penalty of up to the amount of tax to which such failure relates (100 per cent penalty rate) may still be imposed by the DGIR. The recently passed Finance Bill 2020 also makes it an offence for taxpayers who fail to furnish contemporaneous transfer-pricing documentation (fine of between 20,000 and 100,000 ringgit or imprisonment for up to six months, or both), in lieu of which a penalty of between 20,000 and 100,000 ringgit can be imposed by the Director General of Inland Revenue instead.
ii Voluntary Disclosure Programme
On an ad hoc basis, Special Voluntary Disclosure Programmes (SPVD) may be implemented by the IRB under which taxpayers would be encouraged to make voluntary declarations of income through reduced penalty rates. There is currently no such programme in place.
i Recovering overpaid tax
A taxpayer who has overpaid in taxes can submit a claim for refund within five years after the end of the YA to which the claim relates.43 A taxpayer dissatisfied with the refund amount may appeal to the SCIT within 30 days after being notified of this amount. Where a refund is due, compensation for late refund may also be obtained in accordance with the formula prescribed by the ITA.44
ii Relief for error or mistake
Further, a taxpayer who has overpaid in taxes by reason or some error or mistake in a return or statement furnished to the IRB may also seek repayment of the amount overpaid through an application for relief to the DGIR in respect of such error or mistake.45 A taxpayer dissatisfied with the DGIR's decision on the application can bring an appeal within six months upon being informed of the decision by requesting the DGIR to forward the application to the SCIT. Unsatisfactorily, however, the ITA does not prescribe a time limit for the DGIR's decision to be made and applications may occasionally languish under review.
Importantly, Section 131(4) of the ITA states that no relief shall be given if the error or mistake was made on the basis of the 'practice of the DGIR generally prevailing' at the time when the return or statement was made. An issue that arose for determination in Rapid Growth Technology46 was whether or not a taxpayer who had relied on a public ruling by the DGIR would be precluded from obtaining relief on the basis that the public ruling amounts to a 'practice of the DGIR generally prevailing'.
On the final appeal, the COA held that Section 131(4) ITA cannot prevent a taxpayer from obtaining relief. In doing so, the COA agreed with the taxpayer's arguments that both the ITA47 itself and the DGIR public rulings have drawn distinctions between public rulings and 'practice of the DGIR generally prevailing'.48
iii Challenging administrative decisions
The availability of judicial review to dispute tax assessments by the IRB has been discussed above in Section II.i.
Judicial review in some other jurisdictions 'focuses on the process and the scope of the decision rather than the merits of the decision taken'.49 In Malaysia, the courts are not confined merely to the decision-making process, but may examine the merits of the decision itself.50
As discussed, exceptional circumstances would have to be demonstrated for leave to be obtained where the alternative remedy of a SCIT appeal exists. Apart from tax assessments, other administrative decisions in tax may also be amenable to judicial review. For instance, MoF decisions on tax exemptions under Section 127(3A), or pioneer status under the Promotion of Investment Act 1986 may also be susceptible to challenge by judicial review.
Cost awards by the SCIT are strictly regulated by the ITA, which stipulates that no costs order can be made except as expressly provided for.51 The SCIT may only order costs of up to 5,000 ringgit to be paid to it where the appeal is frivolous or vexatious in nature.52 The taxpayer may make representations as to why such an order ought not to be made within 21 days upon service of the deciding order. No provision exists for the recovery of costs by successful taxpayers.
At the HC, COA and the FC,53 cost awards are discretionary in nature54 and would usually follow the event (i.e., costs would usually be awarded to the winning party). In practice, cost awards are often nominal and may not reflect the actual costs incurred by litigants. Where a consent order is to be recorded for settlement, it is common for parties to agree for no order to be made as to costs. Each party would bear their own costs.
Alternative dispute resolution
Other than litigation, the only formal method of resolving tax disputes is through the DRP in the 12-month review period after a Notice of Appeal (Form Q) is filed, but before the matter is forwarded to the SCIT for registration. DRP is conducted by the IRB's Dispute Resolution Department (i.e., a separate department from the assessing branch that issued the assessments). In recent times, DRP does not appear to have been tremendously successful as reflected in the increasing number of pending SCIT appeals.
Taxpayers desiring certainty may apply for an Advance Ruling from the IRB on the application of ITA provisions to proposed arrangements to be entered into.55 The DGIR is legally bound by its ruling once a taxpayer has duly relied and acted upon the ruling.56 However, a taxpayer dissatisfied with an advance ruling by the IRB cannot challenge it by way of judicial review, as the FC held in IBM Malaysia57 that a taxpayer would not have been 'adversely affected' until an assessment is issued.
Double taxation treaties
As of 21 June 2019, Malaysia has entered into double taxation agreements (DTAs) with 74 countries.58 These DTAs have legal effect under the ITA.59 The courts have also confirmed that in the event of a conflict between DTA and ITA provisions, it is the former that is to prevail.60
In Alam Maritim,61 the FC held that the taxpayer is precluded from relief under the Malaysia–Singapore DTA as the disputed payments fell within Section 4A of the ITA that created a special class of income under which the taxpayer's income should be taxed in Malaysia. However, this decision was distinguished by the HC in Wira Swire Sdn Bhd.62 The HC agreed with the taxpayer that the Malaysia–Denmark DTA here had been ratified subsequent to the enactment of Section 4A and must have clearly been intended by Parliament to take precedence.
Areas of focus
The IRB continues to adopt its hardline stance of objecting to all judicial review applications at the leave stage, and taxpayers who wish to apply for a stay of the disputed taxes in such proceedings can expect their applications to be fiercely contested at every step. The Attorney General Chambers appears to take the same approach, and its 2018 statement on the 'importance of promoting judicial review as a means of developing public law' now appears to be a thing of the past.63 Arguments on the interpretation and scope of the new Section 103B of the ITA can also be expected in the coming year in stay applications against tax assessments.
Service tax have now been imposed on digital services supplied by foreign service providers vide the Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2019 (STA 2019). The definition of digital service in the STA, on which service tax is imposed, is anticipated to give rise to differences between customs and taxpayers on the applicability of service tax to particular types of services. In respect of payments for digital advertising by foreign providers on online platforms, the IRB has made known its position that such payments amount to royalty on which withholding tax applies. The IRB's position has yet to be tested in the courts.
Outlook and conclusions
The increased expediency in the disposal of tax appeals is welcome and likely to encourage taxpayers' confidence in the Malaysian tax dispute resolution mechanism. The recent trend of the courts in dismissing judicial review applications may seem discouraging. However, it is to be hoped that the courts will continue to be receptive to such applications and not adopt the blanket rule that the alternative appeal procedure should always be exhausted, especially where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated by taxpayers.
Moving forward, taxpayers must continue to identify and manage their tax risks and potential tax exposures. In encounters with the IRB, obtaining legal advice at the earliest opportunity is also strongly advised to ensure that the taxpayer's interests are best protected as it is inevitable that such interests would not be in alignment with the IRB's own objectives.
1 Chris Toh Pei Roo is an associate at Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.
2 Prima Nova Harta Development Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (WA-14-7-12/2019).
3 Government of Malaysia v. Mohd Najib Haji Abd Razak  1 LNS 523.
4 Government of Malaysia v. Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak  9 CLJ 723.
5 Kerajaan Malaysia v. Nooryana Najwa Dato Sri Mohd Najib  9 CLJ 414.
6 SMSD v. Ketua Penagrah Kastams & Ors (Civil Appeal No. A-01(A)-429-07/2018).
7 Uniqlo (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Kastam dan Eksais  9 CLJ 521.
8 COA decision reported as Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd  7 AMR 798.
9 Tax Audit Framework – Finance and Insurance; available at: http://phl.hasil.gov.my/pdf/pdfam/TAX_AUDIT_FRAMEWORK_FINANCE_AND_INSURANCE_18112020.pdf.
10 Paragraph 1A, Schedule 5 ITA as inserted by Section 4(a) of the Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2019.
11 Paragraph 34A, Schedule 5 ITA as inserted by Section 4(g) of the Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2019.
12 Order 53, Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012).
13 Government of Malaysia & Anor v. Jagdis Singh  CLJ (Rep) 110.
14 Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak and others  1 MLJ 545.
15 Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Mudah.My Sdn Bhd  5 CLJ 283; Keysight Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia  1 LNS 20; Ta Wu Realty Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Anor  6 CLJ 235; Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri  MLJU 171; Melody Park Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & other Applications  1 LNS 1048; BLDSB v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (unreported).
16 Section 103 ITA.
17 Section 103(5) ITA.
18 Section 106 ITA.
19 Kerajaan Malaysia v. Jasanusa Sdn Bhd  2 CLJ 701; Chong Woo Yit v. Government of Malaysia  1 CLJ Rep 9.
20 Kerajaan Malaysia v. Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd (Appeal No. W-01(IM)(NCVC)-148-04/2017).
21 Monthly (taxable turnover exceeding 5 million ringgit), quarterly (taxable turnover not exceeding 5 million ringgit).
22 Section 43 GST Act 2014.
23 Section 124 GST Act.
24 Section 126 GST Act.
25 Usually a GST agent or an advocate and solicitor.
26 Section 148 GST Act.
27 Section 5(3), GST Repeal Act 2018.
28 Section 141V, Customs Act 1967 (CA 1967).
29 Section 141W, CA 1967.
30 Section 26, Sales Tax Act 2018; Section 26, Service Tax Act 2018.
31 Section 27, Sales Tax Act 2018; Section 27, Service Tax Act 2018.
32 Section 96, Sales Tax Act 2018; Section 81 Service Tax Act 2018.
33 Section 98, ITA 1967.
34 Paragraph 42A, Schedule 5 ITA 1967.
36 Section 141B, CA 1967.
37 Section 141C, CA 1967.
38 Section 141N, CA 1967.
39 Section 11, Customs (Amendment) Act 2018 amending Section 141Q, CA 1967.
40 Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Teraju SInar Sdn Bhd  8 CLJ 169.
41 Section 96, Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA 1964); Appeals against decisions of constitutional importance may also merit leave under Section 96(b) CJA 1964.
42 Sections 116 to 120, ITA 1967.
43 Section 111 ITA 1967 (or within five years after the assessment was raised where the overpayment was subsequent to an assessment raised).
44 Section 111D ITA 1967.
45 Section 131 ITA 1967.
46 Rapid Growth Technology Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (P-01(A)-234-07/2017).
47 Section 99(4).
48 Grounds of judgment have yet to be published by the COA.
49 See the Tax Disputes and Litigation Review – Edition 6, Singapore chapter at thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-tax-disputes-and-litigation-review-edition-6/1167738/singapore.
50 Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v. Zain Azahari Zainal Abidin  2 CLJ 248.
51 Paragraph 32, Schedule 5, ITA 1967.
52 Paragraph 29, Schedule 5 ITA 1967.
53 For appeals originating from the HC.
54 Order 59, Rule 2 ROC 2012.
55 Section 138B ITA 1967.
56 Section 138B(4) ITA 1967.
57 COA decision reported as Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd  7 AMR 798.
59 Section 132 ITA 1967.
60 Director General of Inland Revenue v. Euromedical Industries Ltd  CLJ (Rep) 128; Damco Logistics Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (2011) MSTC 30-033; Maersk Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (2013) MSTC 10-046.
61 Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia v. Alam Maritim Sdn Bhd  3 CLJ 421.
62 Wira Swire Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri  1 LNS 1026.