Arulanandom J:

In this case the plaintiff, the Government of Malaysia, instituted a suit against the defendant for the recovery of $906,657.58 and interest at the rate of 6% per annum being additional income tax raised on the defendant for the years 1962 to 1973. The Notices of Assessment for the said years totalling $824,234.21 respectively were duly posted and served on the defendant and as the defendant failed to pay the said sum within thirty days after service of the Notices of Assessment, an additional 10% increase was respectively added to the tax pursuant to the provisions of s. 103(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1967. The said Notices of Assessment were dated 11 May 1974. The suit was filed on 17 July 1974 and on 27 July 1974 the defendant entered appearance through his solicitors. On 12 August 1974 the defendant entered his defence and among other things claimed that he was not liable to pay any of the said additional tax or increased assessment imposed. He claimed there were no additional amounts of chargeable income upon which any additional assessment could be made or due. He further claimed that the Director General had erred in making and imposing the additional tax and penalties and also that the calculations on the gross takings for each day concerned were wrong as he also incurred expenditure in purchase of various articles. He further stated that he had appealed to the Special Commissioners of Inland Revenue but the matter was not yet heard. On 12 September 1974 the plaintiff applied by way of Summonsin-Chambers for leave to sign final judgment and on 25 September 1974 the Senior Assistant Registrar gave leave to the plaintiff to enter final judgment. Against this decision the defendant now appeals and his grounds for appeal are that s. 103(1) and s. 103(4) of the Income Tax Act are only applicable to tax due and payable on a Notice of Assessment for the current year and not for twelve years at a stretch. He also states that the additional income tax increases and penalties are too fantastic and most unreasonable. To the submission in the affidavit of the plaintiff that under the provisions of s. 103(1) of the Income Tax Act tax was payable notwithstanding any appeal against the assessment, the defendant states that s. 103(1) is not applicable in this case and s. 106(3) too is not applicable in this case. He further states there is a triable issue and a good defence in his action. In his submission before me Counsel for the defendant further argued that this assessment is not final under ss. 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(c). He submitted that since there was no finality in the assessment especially in this case where the assessment was for twelve years the Director General could not issue a certificate under s. 142(1) because there was no finality of the assessment. He argued that s. 142 should be read with s. 97(1)(a) and (c) and s. 91(1). Counsel suggested that if judgment was given before the matter was heard by the Special Commissioners and execution levied there will be hardship to the defendant and the plaintiff will be unable to restore status quo if the Special Commissioners were to decide on a lesser amount. He cited the recent case of Sun Man Tobacco Co. Ltd. V. Government Of Malaysia where the original claim was for $1,320,440.15 and was later reduced to $1,006,000. Counsel stressed that all authorities were for only one year of assessment and therefore he should be given unconditional leave to defend.

When proceedings are commenced under O. 14 the normal rules for triable issues do not apply to cases of this nature because of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Normally when defence raised triable issues it is a rule of law that unconditional leave to defend should be given but under s. 106(3) of the Income Tax Act it clearly states that in any proceedings commenced by the Government under s. 106(1) of the Act for the recovery of tax by civil proceedings as a debt due to the Government the Court shal