The failure to properly intitule an originating summons is fatal, and claims for input tax must strictly adhere to statutory provisions, emphasizing the doctrine of legitimate expectation in tax cases.

Introduction

[1] The Appellant is appealing against the decision of the 2nd Respondent (the Custom Appeal Tribunal) dated 13 January 2023 which allowed the 1st Respondent's appeal against the decision of the Appellant in raising a Bill of Demand (BOD) dated 3 April 2020 which was set aside by the 2nd Respondent.

[2] The Appellant filed an Originating Summons (OS) dated 9 February 2023 (encl 1) primarily seeking the following reliefs:-

2.1 Satu perintah bahawa keputusan Responden Kedua bertarikh 13 Januari 2023 yang membenarkan Rayuan Responden Pertama diketepikan;

2.2 Satu perintah bahawa Responden Kedua telah terkhilaf dalam memutuskan bahawa rayuan Responden Pertama dibenarkan dan keputusan Ketua Pengarah Kastam bertarikh 3 April 2020 diketepikan dan bil-bil tuntutan bernombor rujukan L1568704064 adalah dibatalkan;

2.3 Satu perintah bahawa keputusan Responden Kedua yang menyatakan GST-03 sebagai permohonan tuntutan cukai input luar biasa Responden Pertama dan Bayaran sebagai kelulusan Responden Pertama adalah dibatalkan;

2.4 Perintah terhadap Responden Pertama membayar kepada Perayu jumlah Cukai sebagaimana di dalam Bil Tuntutan yang disahkan selepas proses semakan dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh Perintah ini; dan

2.5 Kos dibayar atas dasar Peguamcara Anak Guam berdasarkan ' Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 '; dan

2.6 Apa-apa perintah / relif dan/atau arahan-arahan lain yang dianggap adil dan saksama oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.

[3] In essence, the Appellant's appeal revolves around the BOD dated 3 April 2020 amounting RM4,365,395.33 issued by the Appellant against the 1st Respondent.

[4] After the hearing, I dismissed the Appellant's OS (Enclosure 1). This judgment states the reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

[5] The background facts in this appeal are extracted from the Appellant's written submission with suitable modification.

[6] The 1st Respondent involved in biomass operation and production and other products related to Empty Fruit Bunch (EPB). The 1st Respondent is a company registered as a taxable person under s 24 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 (GST Act) with registration number 001138176000 which is effective from 1 November 2016. The 1st Respondent's taxable period is quarterly. The 1st Respondent had made a claim for Input Tax such was allowable and the refund was made.

[7] An audit later was conducted by the Appellant on the 1st Respondent for the taxable period of 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2017 involving 3 taxable periods between 1 November 2016 to 31 December 2016 (1st Period), 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2017 (2nd Period) and 1 April 2017 - 30 June 2017 (3rd Period).

[8] Based on the audit carried out by the Appellant from the total amount of input tax submitted by the 1st Respondent, it was later found that the sum of RM4,365,395.33 of it was the claim for the input tax that had incurred by the Appellant before 1 November 2016 that is before the 1st Respondent became a taxable person or the registrant.

[9] The outcome of the audit was, the 1st Respondent's claim that was allowed before they became the registrant w