This was an appeal from a decision of Ambrose J. dismissing a motion for an order of mandamus directed to the Comptroller of Income Tax, Singapore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the comptroller') compelling him to comply with the provisions of section 93(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') by causing repayment to be made to one C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the taxpayer') of the sum of $5,573.47 being income tax paid by the taxpayer in excess of the amount payable by him under the provisions of the Ordinance.

At the conclusion of the hearing we allowed the appeal and made an order of mandamus compelling the comptroller to comply with the provisions of section 93(3) of the Ordinance as set out above but since the matter raised a point of some practical interest and importance to taxpayers generally we intimated we would give our reasons in writing at a later date. I now proceed to do so.

The facts and circumstances which gave rise to these proceedings are these.

By notices of assessment and additional assessment issued under the provisions of the Ordinance by the comptroller for the year of assessment 1965 the taxpayer was assessed to tax and the total amount of tax payable thereunder amounted to $7,729.08. The taxpayer then appealed to the Income Tax Board of Review (hereinafter called 'the board') pursuant to section 79 of the Ordinance but paid the total amount of the tax as he was required to do under section 86 of the Ordinance. The appeal was heard by the board on various dates in 1966 and 1967 and determined on the 28th January, 1967, when the board allowed the appeal and held that a sum of $19,800 which had been assessed by the comptroller as income was in fact a capital receipt and directed that the assessments be reduced accordingly. The comptroller had therefore, by virtue of the board's decision, received from the taxpayer an overpayment of $5,573.47, a not inconsiderable sum seeing that the original assessment was $7,729.08.

It is necessary to examine the correspondence which ensued.

On the same day, i.e., the 28th January, 1967, the taxpayer's solicitors wrote to the comptroller asking for a re-computation of the amount of tax payable and requesting a cheque for the amount of tax refundable.

On the 2nd February, 1967, the comptroller being dissatisfied with the decision of the board filed a notice of appeal therefrom in the High Court.

On the 8th February, 1967, the taxpayer's solicitors again wrote to the comptroller asking him to reply to their letter of the 28th January by the 13th February.

On the 13th February, 1967, the comptroller wrote to the taxpayer's solicitors that he was making immediate arrangements to refund any tax paid in excess in accordance with the order of the board dated the 28th January, 1967. On the same day he also wrote another letter to the taxpayer's solicitors that he had proceeded to amend the additional assessments of the 22nd and 28th October, 1965 and enclosed the amended assessment. The comptroller went on to say that as a result of these adjustments to the additional assessments for the year 1965 a refund was due to the taxpayer and this refund would be made during the course of that week on the taxpayer's solicitors' undertaking to retain the refund in their client's account until the outcome of the comptroller's appeal to the High Court.

On the 15th February, 1967, the taxpayer's solicitors wrote to the comptroller asking him to confirm the precise amount of the sum to be refunded. They added that they had no authority to give the required undertaking and that there was no statutory basis for requiring it and demanded an immediate refund.

Then follows some curious correspondence from which it appeared that the comptroller was unable to arrive at the correct figure to be refunded until advised by the taxpayer's solicitors. On the 16th February, 1967, the comptroller thought it was $2,611.48. On the 17th February, the taxpayer's