The application for judicial review was dismissed as the Applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and the Respondent's discretion under the Income Tax Act was not mandatory.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application for leave filed by the Applicant on 19 October 2020 to commence a judicial review proceeding (Encl 1) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC) seeking inter alia, the following:

1.1 THAT the Applicant be granted leave of this Honourable Court to file an application for:

(a) An order for the Respondent to exercise its power under s 135 and/or s 127(3A) of the Income Tax Act 1967 ( ITA ) to set aside or exempt Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) decision in the form of notices of additional assessment (Forms JA) for the years of assessment (YAs) 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 with a notice of assessment (Form J) for YA 2019 for the sum of RM653,655,912.19 on the grounds that the said Forms JA and Form J were illegal, void, unlawful and/or in excess of authority, had been irrational and/or unreasonable, and resulted in a denial of the Applicant's legitimate expectations;

(b) Declaration that the Respondent is bound by and shall give effect to s 34(2)(b) of the ITA which clearly provides that the debt which is reasonably estimated in all circumstances of the case to be irrecoverable is deductible;

(c) A Declaration that the Respondent is bound by and shall give effect to s 4(c) of the ITA where the Applicant's late payment interest should be assessed under s 4(c) of the ; and

(d) A Declaration that there is no basis in law and fact for the said Forms JA and Form J to be raised on the Applicant where the deduction of Applicant's specific provision of doubtful debts pursuant to s 34(2)(b) of the ITA should be allowed.

1.2 THAT all further proceedings including the enforcement and effect of the said Forms JA and Form J be stayed until the full and final determination of the application to quash the said Forms JA and Form J;

1.3 THAT all necessary and consequential directions and orders be given;

1.4 THAT the costs of this application be costs in the cause; and

1.5 ALL other and further relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper.

[2] In essence, the Applicant applied for leave to commence judicial review against the Respondent for an order for Certiorari to exercise his powers under s 135 and/or s 127(3A) of the ITA to set aside or exempt the impugned assessments.

[3] The disputed amount of tax is illustrated in the following notices of additional assessment (Forms JA) and Notice of assessment (Form J) dated 30 September 2020 as follows:

[4] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's application for leave to commence judicial review (Encl 1). I will now set the grounds for my decision.

Backgrounds Facts

[5] The background facts of this case, which are not in dispute are extracted from the Applicant's Affidavit in Support with appropriate modifications, and are as follows:

[6] Vide a Novation Agreement entered between the State of Government of Selangor and the Applicant dated 3 February 2005, the Applicant was entitled to sell and supply the treated water to Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (SYABAS).

[7] The chronology of key events, which is not in dispute, is as follows:

[8] As the Respondent had failed to respond to the Applicant's request to issue a direction under s 135 of the ITA and/or exempt under s 127(3A) the taxes arbitrarily raised via the said Forms JA and Form J, the Applicant is making the present application to preserve its legal rights. The Respondent's decision in his failure to respond is treated as rejecting the Applicant's application for request under s 135 and/or application for tax exemption under s 127(3A).

The Grounds For The Judicial Review

[9] The grounds for reliefs sought are based on the contention that the Respondent's decision was illegal, void, unlawful, excess of authority, unreasonable, irrational and made in breach of legitimate expectation. These contentions are supported by several reasons which are the following:

Illegality

[10] With respect, the Respondent's decision is illegal, void, unlawful and/or in excess of author