Local authorities may impose assessment rates based on public obligations rather than direct service rendered to specific taxpayers.

[1] This originating summons (encl 1) is an appeal filed by a company known as Shalimar Malay PLC under Section 145 (1) of the Local Government Act 1976 ("Act"). The Appellant which was formerly known as The Shalimar (Malay) Estate Company Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1957. It own sand operates a palm oil estate within the District of Kuala Selangor which is known as the Shalimar Estate ("estate").

[2] The estate consists of 17 different lots. Those of which are Lots no 27,441, 442, 443, 445, 446, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, and 1301 ("Properties") with lot 27 being the majority of the estate bearing 85%of the total of the estate covering 600 acres of land ("Lot 27").

[3] The Respondent in this present case is the District Council of Kuala Selangor or Majlis Daerah Kuala Selangor having jurisdiction over properties and lands within the District of Kuala Selangor.

[4] The appellant in this case being dissatisfied with the Respondent's decision and demand for outstanding assessment rates amounting RM 87,940.83 which was revised vide Section 144 of the Act when the Respondent had amended the valuation list regarding the Appellant's properties after hearing of the Appellant's objection on 10 June 2014. The Respondent has decided to dismiss the Appellant's objection against the revised assessment rate.

[5] The Respondent's amendment to the valuation list was made in view of the Government of Selangor Gazette dated 16 March 2009 which had added new boundaries to the District of Kuala Selangor (within the Respondent's jurisdiction) which is appended together with plan no 1414. (see Exhibit SJ-5, encl 4). The amendment of the boundaries had in turn, added Lot 27 within the jurisdiction of the Respondent and this, the Respondent sought to collect rates from the Appellant in accordance with the amended boundaries set by the gazette.

[6] It must be noted from the outset that the propriety of the Respondent's authority in according to the gazette and including Lot 27 in the new amended valuation list is not an issue in contention. The contention of the Appellant is on the propriety of the annual/assessment rate which was imposed against the Appellant's property.

[7] The Respondent then had issued a Notice of Amendment of Valuation List dated 29 April 2009 (to include Lot 27) to the Appellant under Section 144 of the Act.(See exh S-3, encl 2)

[8] In response to the Notice, the Appellant through its Management Agent, Agro Harapan Lestari Sdn Bhd ("Agent") had issued a letter objecting ("1st objection") the execution of the revised annual value and assessment to the Respondent dated 18 May 2009. (See exh S-4, encl 2)

[9] In reply to the 1st objection, the Respondent considered the objection and accordingly reduced the annual value from RM1,436,900.00 to RM1,005,840.00 and the annual assessment rate was reduced from RM43,107.00 to RM30,175.20 on Lot27.

[10] Still dissatisfied with the reduction, the Appellant issued a further objection ("2nd objection") through its letter dated 27 August 2009. The Appellant prayed for either a waiver of annual assessment or further reduction of the annual value and/or assessment rate. (See exh S-6, encl 2)

[11] Thereafter, the Respondent had issued similar notices of the revised annual value and/or assessment rates regarding the Appellant's other 16 Lots besides Lot 27 on 6 October 2009. (See exh S-7, encl 2)

[12] Subsequent to the 2nd Objection, a meeting ("1st Meeting") was called between the Malaysian Palm Oil Association ("MPOA"), the Appellant and the Respondent at the Respondent's office