SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 2152

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
FARIDZ GOHIM ABDULLAH, JC
EDEN WONDERLAND SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP DUTY INLAND REVENUE BOARD – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: KCH-25-15-9-2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Tony Ling,Daniel Lee ,Respondent Advocate: Mohammad Hafidz Ahmad

The court ruled that the applicants were entitled to a refund of stamp duties as the application for relief was made within the 24-month period stipulated by the amended provisions of the Stamp Act 1949, following the rescission of the agreements.

Headnote:(A) Stamp Act 1949 - Sections 21(7), 57, 58, 80(3) - Finance Act 2021 - Amendment of time for refund of spoiled stamps - Applicants paid RM156,620.00 in stamp duties for Sale and Purchase Agreements which were rescinded - Application for refund rejected by Respondent on grounds of non-compliance with statutory provisions - Court found that the stamps were spoiled under s 57(f)(vi) and the application was made within the 24-month period as per the amended proviso (a) of s 57 - Respondent's decision was irrational and based on incorrect application of the law. (Paras 19-20, 36-37, 60-76)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of review - Court acts in a supervisory capacity and does not substitute its own decision for that of the administrative authority - The decision must be based on legality, rationality, and procedural propriety. (Paras 14-17)

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 1 For Judicial Review)

Faridz Gohim Abdullah JC:

Introduction

[1] This is the Applicants' application for Judicial Review against the decision of the Respondent ('decision') rejecting the Applicants' application for a refund of the stamp duty paid under the Stamp Act 1949 .

[2] Having considered the application, the affidavits filed and the written submissions of both parties, this Court has allowed the Applicants' application for reliefs sought as in paras 2(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Statement with no order as to costs.

[3] The Respondent being dissatisfied with the decision has filed an appeal.

[4] Below are the grounds for my decision.

Brief Background Of Facts

[5] Sometime in May to December 2021, the Applicants paid the Respondent a total sum of RM156,620.00 as the stamp duties in respect of the Sale and Purchase Agreement of lands, Memorandum of Transfer and Supplementary Deed vide twenty-three (23) Stamp Duty Certificates (Sijil Setem).

[6] However, the sale was not materialised and the said Sale and Purchase Agreement was mutually rescinded vide Deed of Mutual Rescission dated 23 January 2023.

[7] The Applicants applied for the refund of the stamp duties paid under spoiled stamps through the LHDN Stamp Assessment and Payment System for "Bayaran Balik Duti Setem".

[8] The said application was rejected by the Respondent on the basis that the application does not fulfil the terms and conditions required under the provisions of ss 21(7), 57, 58 and 80(3) of the Stamp Act 1949 .

[9] The content of the said notification for non-approval is produced herein for ease of reference ("Decision"):

Tuan,

BAYARAN BALIK DUTI SETEM

Jenis Surat Cara: Memorandum of Transfer

Saya dengan hormatnya merujuk kepada permohohan tuan bertarikh 10 Mac 2023.

Dukacita dimaklumkan permohonan tuan tidak diluluskan kerana:

Dokumen dan alasan yang dikemukakan tidak memenuhi syarat-syarat atau tidak termasuk dalam mana-mana hal keadaan sebagaimana yang ditetapkan di bawah ss 21(7), 57, 58 dan 80(3) Akta Setem 1949.

Sekian terima kasih

"BERKHIDMAT UNTUK NEGARA"

PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM LHDNM"

Cetakan ini adalah janaan komputer dan tidak memerlukan tandatangan

"BERSAMA MEMBANGUNKAN NEGARA"

[10] Hence, this application for Judicial Review was filed against the decision of the Respondent.

[11] The Applicants prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) An order of declaration that the stamp duties paid under the Sijil Setem(s) listed in Table A herein below for their respective instruments (hereinafter referred to as "the instruments") are spoiled stamps under s 57(f)(vi) Stamp Act 1949 by virtue of four (4) Deed of Mutual Rescissions all dated 30 January 2023 cancelling, annulling and rescinding all the instruments.

Table A

b) An order of declaration that time for application for relief for the spoiled stamps under Table A is within 24 months from the date of their respective instruments pursuant to proviso (a) of s 57 of the Stamp Act 1949 reading together with the Finance Act 2021 .

(c) An order to reverse the decision of the Respondent made on 30 June 2023 refusing the refund stamp duties paid under the Sijil Setem(s) listed in Table A.

(d) An order that the Respondent do refund the stamp duty totalling the sum of RM156,620.00 paid under the Sijil Setem(s) to the Applicants through its agent Messrs H.C. Lee & Partners, Advocates under any of its preferred firm's client account.

(e) Any further consequential orders this Honourable Court may deem fit and just.

[12] The grounds in support of this Application are those appearing in the Statement and the Affidavit in Support of John Tie Hieng Kiet affirmed on 1 September 2023.

[13] The summary of the grounds of the application is as follows:

(a) That the Applicants (Seller) had entered into four (4) Sale and Purchase Agreements all dated 30 April 2021 (SPA) and fifteen (15) Memorandum of Transfer (MOT) all dated 20 May 2021 to sell all four (4) parcels of vacant land known as Lot 359, Lot 281, Lot 280 and Lot 173 all of Bloc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top