The impugned instrument qualifies for stamp duty remission under item 22(1)(b) of the Stamp Act 1949, satisfying the conditions outlined in the Remission Order.

Choo Kah Sing JCA:

Introduction

[1] The respondent filed an appeal to the High Court by way of case stated pursuant to s 39(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 (Revised 1989) (hereafter 'the Act'). The respondent's appeal was against the appellant's decision made on 8 March 2021 (pursuant to s 38A(5) of the Act) in that the appellant had rejected the respondent's notice of objection dated 16 November 2020 which was in response to a Notice of Assessment of Stamp Duty dated 13 February 2019 (hereafter 'the Notice of Assessment') issued by the appellant.

[2] On 30 March 2022, the learned High Court Judge allowed the respondent's appeal. Consequently, the appellant's Notice of Assessment was set aside.

[3] Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned High Court Judge, the appellant filed this appeal. For ease of reference, the appellant shall hereafter be referred to as "the Collector".

(Note: The High Court decision is reported as Ann Joo Integrated Steel Sdn Bhd v. Pemungut Duti Setem; [2022] 10 CLJ 722).

[4] On 3 July 2024, this Court , after having read the written submissions and after having heard the oral submissions from the counsels for the respective parties, reserved its decision. We now deliver our decision, and the reasons for the decision are set out below.

Salient Facts

[5] By way of a Letter of Offer dated 27 December 2018 (hereafter 'the impugned instrument') issued by Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad (hereafter 'the Bank') to the respondent, the Bank agreed to offer various credit facilities to the respondent, and the respondent agreed to accept the offer of the various credit facilities. The various credit facilities comprised of various trade facilities up to the limit of RM100,000,000.00 in the forms of Letter of Credit, Trust Receipt, Foreign Currency Trust Receipt, Bankers Acceptance and Foreign Currency Promissory Notes (collectively hereafter be referred to as 'the Trade Facilities') and the facility of Forward Foreign Exchange up to the limit of RM5,000,000.00 (hereafter 'the Forex'). Hence, the total credit facilities offered in the impugned instrument was up to the limit of RM105,000,000.00 (hereafter 'the credit facilities amount).

[6] It is instructive to understand the difference between the terms "amount chargeable for duty" and "amount of stamp duty that is chargeable". The "amount chargeable for duty" means the amount that is to be used for the calculation of the stamp duty to be paid; whereas, the "amount of stamp duty that is chargeable" means the stamp duty payable.

[7] Two things are not in dispute. First, the impugned instrument is an instrument chargeable with duty. Second, the sum of RM105,000,000.00 (or the credit facilities amount) is the amount chargeable for stamp duty. The heart of the dispute is: What is the amount of stamp duty payable on the amount chargeable for stamp duty?

[8] The respondent asserted that it was entitled to benefit from the Stamp Duty (Remission) (No 2) Order 2012 (hereafter 'the Remission Order') for a remission of the stamp duty payable under item 22(1)(b) of the First Schedule of the Act. The Collector disagreed with the respondent's assertion. The Collector opined that the amount of stamp duty payable falls under item 22(1)(a), instead of 22(1)(b) of the First Schedule of the Act, and that the stamp duty payable was RM525,000.00. Further, the Collector disagreed with the respondent that the Remission Order was applicable to the respondent. As such, the respondent could not rely on the Remission Order to seek for refund of the stamp duty already paid.

[9] The learned High Court Judge was in favour of the respondent's argument in that the impugned instrument did not qualify to fall within the envisaged meaning as per item 22(1)(a) of the First Schedule of the Actvis-à-vis "for a definite and certain period so that the total amount to be ultimately payable can be ascertained". Therefore, the High Court held that the Collector's reliance on the stamp duty payable un