The Tax Disputes and Litigation Review: Malaysia
In the preceding edition, the authors noted the Malaysian Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) comparatively aggressive approach in recent years. In the past year, such aggressiveness as reflected in the 'spike in frequency of tax audits and operations' have continued to invite criticism.2 Perhaps in response to such criticism, the agency has given assurances of a professional and fair approach notwithstanding the higher tax collection target set for the previous year.
While public perception on aggressiveness may be subjective, the fact remains that the tax collection target of 150 billion ringgit is higher than ever before. Inevitably therefore, the volume of assessments issued over the previous year remains high with million-dollar, and even billion-dollar assessments received by private companies, government-linked corporations and even prominent politicians.
Compared, for instance, with Japan, where the number of tax disputes have been steadily decreasing since 2010,3 tax disputes remain strongly litigated in Malaysia. The authors have previously highlighted the issue of the courts' continued capability to efficiently hear and decide the ever-increasing number of tax cases. It is encouraging to note then that some of the changes implemented by the recent Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2019, which will be discussed below, appear to be targeted at such concerns.
In the past year, decided cases of interest include those outlined in the remainder of this section.
i Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT)
Setting aside transfer pricing adjustments made by the IRB on the taxpayer, the SCIT held, among others, that the IRB had acted erroneously in applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) over the Comparable Uncontrolled Pricing (CUP) Method, which is preferred under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Transfer Pricing Guidelines.4
ii High Court
The High Court (HC) reinforced the trite principle that double taxation agreement provisions shall prevail over those of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA).5 The court allowed the deductibility of expenses incurred by the taxpayer under Section 33(1) ITA by applying the trite principle that expenses 'incurred' are not confined to actual disbursements and would also include sums that the taxpayer is under an obligation to pay.6 The High Court allowed the deductibility of valuation fee expenses incurred by the taxpayer under Section 33(1) ITA. In doing so, the High Court reversed the SCIT's decision that an expense had to be a mandatory requirement in order for it to be deductible.7
iii Court of Appeal (COA)
The COA reversed the High Court's decision that Advance Rulings by the IRB under Section 138B ITA are decisions amenable to judicial review. The Federal Court has since granted leave for the taxpayer to appeal against the COA's decision.8
The COA upheld the High Court's decision that the court has no jurisdiction to grant an order declaring the dissolution of a company to be void under Section 535(1) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) after the expiry of two years from the date of dissolution of the company. The IRB has applied to do so in attempting to raise additional assessments upon the company that has been wound up.9
The COA upheld the High Court's decision that the taxpayer is entitled to claim, among others, industrial building allowance on expenses for the demolition of certain structures in its factory.10
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).
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. Previously, every appeal at the SCIT must be heard by three Special Commissioners.11 Effective 31 December 2019, the newly inserted paragraph 1A to Schedule 5 allows an appeal to be heard by a Special 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.12 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 High Court 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 High Court 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 also now required to prepare records of appeal.13 Upon hearing and determining the question of law in such an appeal, the High Court may, among others, order such assessments to be confirmed, discharged or amended. Parties dissatisfied with the High Court's decision have a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. A taxpayer cannot appeal to the Federal Court for a matter originating at the SCIT.
Under certain circumstances, a taxpayer may also file a judicial review application at the High Court14 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.15 Decisions of the High Court in judicial review proceedings are appealable up to the Federal Court.
Judicial review is especially apt where the dispute involves questions of law as opposed to 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 Federal Court'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'.16
However, the courts have also dismissed judicial review applications where it was held that exceptional circumstances did not exist.17 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.18 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.19
Unlike the High Court, 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.20
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.21 The COA has recently confirmed this in Berjaya Times Square.22
ii Goods and Services Tax (GST)
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 GST appeals as there are still such appeals pending resolution.
Under the short-lived GST regime, taxable persons have to furnish returns on a monthly or quarterly basis depending on the total amount of their taxable turnover.23 Where such returns have not been filed or contain incorrect information, best judgment assessments24 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.25 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 is communicated.26 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.27 Decisions of the GST Tribunal can be appealed to the High Court,28 which can then be further appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The authors are aware of no appeals that have been made from the GST Tribunal to the High Court in the few years that the GST Act 2014 had been in force. 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).29
Decisions of the Customs Tribunal are deemed to be an order of a Sessions Court and enforceable as such.30 Parties dissatisfied with the Customs Tribunal's decision may appeal to the High Court on a question of law or of mixed law and fact,31 and there is a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
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.32 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.33
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.34 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).35 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 High Court are to be adopted and applied with the necessary modifications.36
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. Additionally, the Finance Minister's Budget 2020 speech has also stated that the SCIT and Customs Tribunal will be merged into the Tax Appeal Tribunal to improve the efficiency of management of taxpayer appeals beginning 2021.37
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 (Customs Tribunal)
The Customs Tribunal was created by the CA 1967.38 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 who also determines the terms, conditions and remuneration of the appointment.39
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 court40 unless the other proceedings have been commenced earlier or unless the tribunal appeal is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out. Through an amendment in 2018,41 advocates and solicitors who were previously barred from appearing at the tribunal are now able to do so.
iv High Court, COA and the Federal Court (FC)
Appeals from the SCIT to the High Court are made by way of case stated (see Section II.i) on questions of law. The High Court 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.42 High Court decisions can be appealed to the COA within 30 days of the High Court'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 High Court. 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.43 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.44
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.
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.
The latest SPVD, which was implemented from 3 November 2018 onwards, has since come to an end on 30 September 2019. Under the SPVD, those who made voluntary SPVD disclosures were subjected to a lower penalty rate of between 10 per cent and 15 per cent compared to the penalty rate of between 80 per cent to 300 per cent after the SPVD period.45
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.46 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.47
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.48 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 Technology49 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 ITA50 itself and the DGIR public rulings have drawn distinctions between public rulings and 'practice of the DGIR generally prevailing'.51
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'.52 In Malaysia, it is clear that the courts would scrutinise decisions 'not only for process, but also for substance'.
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.53 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.54 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 High Court, COA and the FC,55 cost awards are discretionary in nature56 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.57 The DGIR is legally bound by its ruling once a taxpayer has duly relied and acted upon the ruling.58 The High Court has previously held in IBM Malaysia59 that an Advance Ruling by the IRB amounts to a decision amenable to judicial review and can be quashed if tainted with illegality. However, this decision has been reversed by the Court of Appeal. The taxpayer has since been granted leave to appeal to the Federal Court.
Double taxation treaties
As of 28 November 2018, Malaysia has entered into Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) with 74 countries.60 These DTAs have legal effect under the ITA.61 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.62
In Alam Maritim,63 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 has created a special class of income under which the taxpayer's income should be taxed in Malaysia. However, this decision was recently distinguished by the HC in Orange Rederiet Aps.64 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. The HC has also again confirmed the same in Wira Swire Sdn Bhd.65
Areas of focus
The SPVD that has now come to an end reflects the government and the IRB's recognition that maximising voluntary self-compliance is vital under a self-assessment system. However, persistently recalcitrant taxpayers can now expect the full force of the IRB's wrath through stricter enforcement and penalties after the SPVD period.
In judicial review, the IRB appears to be persisting with its publicly declared stance of objecting to all judicial review applications at the leave stage,66 even after the Attorney General Chamber's statement on the 'importance of promoting judicial review as a means of developing public law'.67
Internationally, Malaysia as an associate member of the OECD Inclusive Framework remains committed to the implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan.68 In the previous year, companies with MSC (Multimedia Super Corridor) that have been identified for evaluation by the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices have also began the process of ensuring compliance with the minimum standards under the new rules.
Outlook and conclusions
Domestically, direct tax disputes are expected to continue to be fiercely litigated especially where the quantum disputed is significant with regard to litigation costs. Changes to the SCIT for the stated purpose of promoting efficiency are to be welcomed. It remains to be seen, however, whether such proposed reforms will be sufficient in scope and implementation.
Moving forward, taxpayers must continue to identify and manage their tax risks and potential tax exposures and should take advantage of the ongoing SPVD where suitable. 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.
4 OM Sdn Bhd v. KPHDN.
5 Wira Swire Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (Judicial Review Application No. WA-25-78-03/2017).
6 Tune Insurance Malaysia Berhad v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri  1 LNS 1276.
7 Cempaka Properties Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri  1 LNS 1000.
8 The High Court's decision is reported at IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri  1 LNS 1010.
9 Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia & Anor (W-01(IM)(NCC)-111-03/2019. The High Court's decision is reported at Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia & Anor  10 CLJ 203.
10 Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Lavender Confectionery & Bakery Sdn Bhd (W-01(A)-685-12/2018). The High Court's decision is reported at Lavender Confectionery & Bakery Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri  1 LNS 2102.
11 Paragraph 1(1), Schedule 5 ITA.
12 Paragraph 1A, Schedule 5 ITA as inserted by Section 4(a) of the Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2019.
13 Paragraph 34A, Schedule 5 ITA as inserted by Section 4(g) of the Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2019.
14 Order 53, Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012).
15 Government of Malaysia & Anor v. Jagdis Singh  CLJ (Rep) 110.
16 Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak and others  1 MLJ 545.
17 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.
18 Section 103 ITA.
19 Section 103(5) ITA.
20 Section 106 ITA.
21 Kerajaan Malaysia v. Jasanusa Sdn Bhd  2 CLJ 701; Chong Woo Yit v. Government of Malaysia  1 CLJ Rep 9.
22 Kerajaan Malaysia v. Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd (Appeal No. W-01(IM)(NCVC)-148-04/2017).
23 Monthly (taxable turnover exceeding 5 million ringgit), quarterly (taxable turnover not exceeding 5 million ringgit).
24 Section 43 GST Act 2014.
25 Section 124 GST Act.
26 Section 126 GST Act.
27 Usually a GST agent or an advocate and solicitor.
28 Section 148 GST Act.
29 Section 5(3), GST Repeal Act 2018.
30 Section 141V, Customs Act 1967 (CA 1967).
31 Section 141W, CA 1967.
32 Section 26, Sales Tax Act 2018; Section 26, Service Tax Act 2018.
33 Section 27, Sales Tax Act 2018; Section 27, Service Tax Act 2018.
34 Section 96, Sales Tax Act 2018; Section 81 Service Tax Act 2018.
35 Section 98, ITA 1967.
36 Paragraph 42A, Schedule 5 ITA 1967.
37 https://www1.treasury.gov.my/pdf/speech/2020/bs20.pdf at Paragraph 196.
38 Section 141B, CA 1967.
39 Section 141C, CA 1967.
40 Section 141N, CA 1967.
41 Section 11, Customs (Amendment) Act 2018 amending Section 141Q, CA 1967.
42 Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Teraju SInar Sdn Bhd  8 CLJ 169.
43 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.
44 Sections 116 to 120, ITA 1967.
45 The reduced SPVD penalty rates were listed in the IRB's Media Release dated 2 November 2018.
46 Section 111 ITA 1967 (or within five years after the assessment was raised where the overpayment was subsequent to an assessment raised).
47 Section 111D ITA 1967.
48 Section 131 ITA 1967.
49 Rapid Growth Technology Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (P-01(A)-234-07/2017).
50 Section 99(4).
51 Grounds of judgment have yet to be published by the COA.
52 See the Tax Disputes and Litigation Review – Edition 6, Singapore chapter at https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-tax-disputes-and-litigation-review-edition-6/1167738/singapore.
53 Paragraph 32, Schedule 5, ITA 1967.
54 Paragraph 29, Schedule 5 ITA 1967.
55 For appeals originating from the High Court.
56 Order 59, Rule 2 ROC 2012.
57 Section 138B ITA 1967.
58 Section 138B(4) ITA 1967.
59 See footnote 6.
61 Section 132 ITA 1967.
62 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.
63 Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia v. Alam Maritim Sdn Bhd  3 CLJ 421.
64 Orange Rederiet Aps v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (Judicial Review Application No. WA-25-75-03/2017).
65 Wira Swire Sdn Bhd.