Back
2020 MarsdenLR 1544
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
UNIQLO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM DAN EKSAIS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-423-11/2017]
Public bodies are required to give reasons for decisions in judicial reviews, especially when substantial rights may be affected, promoting fairness and accountability.
Headnote:(A) Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 – Sections 190 and 191 – Judicial review – Applicant's special refund application for sales tax rejection – The Respondent's failure to provide reasons for rejection considered infirm – Court emphasized the necessity of reasons in contentious matters for fairness and accountability. (Paras 26-66)
(B) Duties of public authorities – The absence of express statutory duty does not negate the need for reasons; public decision-makers must act transparently. (Paras 62-64)
Facts of the case: Applicant's special refund application was rejected without reasons; the court found this unjust as the Applicant complied with statutory requirements and was unfairly treated. (Paras 15-23)
Findings of Court: Respondent's decision was unreasonable and unfair due to lack of transparency in decision-making. (Paras 40-66)
Issues: Whether the applicant met requirements for the special refund and whether the respondent had a duty to provide reasons for its decision. (Paras 41-66)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the GST Act does not impose a duty on the respondent to give reasons; however, the particular case's circumstances warranted a duty to explain decisions to ensure fairness. (Paras 28-66)
Result: Appeal allowed; Applicants prayers for certiorari and mandamus granted.
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the Applicant in the High Court, Uniqlo (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd against the decision of the learned High Court Judge, Datuk Hajjah Azizah bt Hj Nawawi, who dismissed with costs the Applicants application for judicial review.
[2] The Applicants application for judicial review pursuant to O 53 r 3(1) of the Rules of 2012 (ROC 2012) had sought the following orders:
(i) An order of certiorari to quash the Respondents decision dated 16 November 2016 that the Applicants application for special refund of sales tax for goods held on hand pursuant to s 190 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 (GST Act) is rejected without any justification or reasoning; and
(ii) An order of mandamus directing that the Respondent refund the sum of RM6,076,369.33 for the special refund of sales tax for goods held on hand to be paid to the Applicant by the Respondent upon final determination of this judicial review.
Background Facts
[3] The narration of the background facts is derived from the learned High Court Judges (learned Judge) "Grounds of Decision", with suitable modifications.
[4] For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in proceedings before the High Court.
[5] The Applicant, Uniqlo (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd is a company in the retail business whereby it imports garments, under the Uniqlo brand name, from China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh etc for sale to Malaysian customers. The Applicant retails its goods through its 37 outlets in various locations within Malaysia.
[6] Pursuant to the introduction of GST regime, the Applicant was registered under s 20 of the GST Act effective from 1 April 2015.
[7] Subsequently, on 26 August 2015, the Applicant submitted an application to the Respondent for a special refund of sales tax for goods held in hand by the Applicant pursuant to s 191 of the GST Act (Special Refund Application).
[8] As required under s 191(2) of the GST Act, the Applicant had also submitted a copy of an audit certificate signed by an independent auditor, Messrs Ernst & Young, (E & Y), certifying the amount of special refund claimed under the Special Refund Application.
[9] By a letter dated 2 September 2015, the Respondent requested from the Applicant relevant supporting documents to be submitted for the purposes of a sales tax audit to be conducted by the Respondent. On the same date, the Respondent also issued audit notices to require access to the Applicants premises. The Applicant fully co-operated and duly complied with all the Respondents request for access and for further information. Consequently, an audit was conducted by the Respondent at the Applicants premises on 10 September 2015.
[10] Following the audit, the Respondent requested for a meeting with the Applicant on 17 September 2015 to discuss matters relating to the Special Refund Application. On 23 September 2015 the Applicant received an e-mail from the Respondent requesting for further supporting documents relating to 100 sampling stock units for the Respondents review. This request was complied with by the Applicant on 15 October 2015. Thereafter, the Respondent also requested for the Applicant to provide the Respondent with the Applicants stock location list. This list was provided by the Applicant vide e-mail to the Respondent on 12 October 2015.
[11] In addition to the above, the Respondent also requested for visits to the Applicants stock locations. In compliance with the said request, access was provided and stock takes were conducted at the Applicants relevant locations between 19 October 2015 and 28 October 2015.
[12] On 22 October 2015 and 29 October 2015, the Applicant received a further request for the details on stock movement for a total of 16 product items for each of the selected Uniqlo stores as well as a further meeting with the Respondent to discuss the derivation of the stock movement data. This was complied with by the Applicant on 17 November 2015. In addition, the Respondent had
