Strict adherence to procedural requirements, including timely filing and exhaustion of internal remedies, is essential for judicial review applications under public law.

[1] These are appeals filed by the Attorney-General's Chambers on behalf of the appellants, against the decision of the learned trial judge sitting in Johor Bahru High Court who had granted leave to the respondents (taxpayers) to mount a challenge against the decision of the 1st appellant on a sales tax matter by way of judicial review application. If that challenge were to prove successful at the substantive hearing, the impugned decision will invariably be quashed by the High Court issuing a certiorari to that effect.

[2] The grievance on the part of the respondents (taxpayers) was caused by the Notice dated 9 April 2012 which had stated that the taxpayers were liable to pay sales tax for the years 2010 and 2011(combined) and the attendant penalty imposed by the 1st appellant Pengarah Kastam Negeri Johor. The disputed amount was RM700,140.30. The appeal for case number J-01-458-10-2012 was heard together before us with case number J-01-457-10-2012 and it was agreed by parties that the decision in the former case would bind the latter case, mutatis mutandis.

[3] At the outset, this appeal was concerned not on the merits or otherwise of the amount that was being claimed by the appellants and that was being disputed by the respondents (taxpayers). Rather, this appeal had arisen due to the objections that were raised by the Attorney-General during the leave application hearing and which objections had been overruled by the learned trial judge who had allowed leave to be granted to the respondent taxpayer to proceed with its judicial review of the impugned decision contained in the said notice dated 9 April 2012.

[4] This appeal was founded on two issues. First, it was submitted by the learned Senior Federal Counsel ['the SFC'] that the application for leave [Lampiran 1] was filed out of time. Secondly, it was contended by the SFC too, that the respondent taxpayer had not exhausted the internal remedy that was available to redress its grievance caused by the decision of the appellants.

[5] We had occasion to hear the able submissions by both parties during the course of the appeal hearing and we had also occasion to read the materials placed before us for our due consideration.

[6] Having done so, we were of the view that this appeal ought to be allowed and we had indeed so ordered. We now proffer our reasons for having done so.

[7] On the first ground of appeal, namely the fact that the respondent taxpayer was out of time when it had filed this application, we are in agreement with the learned SFC that the requirements that needed to be complied with by the applicant were mandatory in nature and must be adhered to strictly by an applicant desirous of obtaining leave for judicial review.

[8] It must be noted that this application was made under the old Rules of the High 1980 whereby the stipulated time-frame for an aggrieved party to file his application under O 53 was set at 40 days from the date on which the impugned decision was first communicated to him or from the date when the grounds for the application first arose [see O 53 r 3(6) RHC 1980].

[9] The law in this regard is trite. Granted that the threshold upon which leave may be granted is not necessarily high, nevertheless adherence to its stated requirements as contained in O 53 have been strictly enforced by the courts. We are aware that the threshold requirement for leave to issue had been reiterated in the case of Ahli-Ahli Suruhanjaya Yang Membentuk Suruhanjaya Siasatan Mengenai Rakaman Klip Video Yang Mengandungi Imej Seorang Yang Dikatakan Peguambela Dan Peguamcara Berbual Melalui Telefon Mengenai Urusan Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim v. Tun Dato' Seri Ahmad Fairuz Dato' Sheikh Abdul Halim & Other Appeals, [2011] 6 MLJ 490 in that in order