Summary judgment application requires sufficient evidence of claim and belief that there is no defence; failure to meet these criteria results in dismissal.

Faizah Jamaludin J:

A. Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Government of Malaysia for summary judgment under O 14 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC") for its claim against the defendant, Nooryana Najwa Mohd Najib, for tax due and payable for the years of assessment 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 ("YAs 2011 to 2017").

[2] The plaintiff had filed a civil suit against the defendant for recovery of the sum of RM10,335,292.36 being income tax assessed against the defendant for YAs 2011 to 2017 including penalties and increases under the Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] (" ITA "). The suit and this application for summary judgment was filed by the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia ("IRB") on the plaintiff's behalf, pursuant to the IRB's function under s 10(a) of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Act 1995 [Act 533] ("IRB Act").

B. Background Facts

[3] The defendant did not file her tax returns for any of the said YAs within the time stipulated in s 77 of the ITA . The Director General of Inland Revenue ("DGIR") through Notices of Assessment (Form J) dated 15 March 2019 raised assessments for each of the said YAs under sub-section 90(3) of the together with penalties under sub-section 112(3) of the for the tax payable for each YA.

[4] The amount of tax assessed by the DGIR under sub-section 90(3) of the ITA and the penalty charged under sub-section 112(3) of the for nonpayment of tax for each of the YAs are detailed the table below:

[5] The Forms J for each of the said YAs were served personally on the defendant's tax agent at the IRB's office in Kuala Lumpur on 18 March 2019.

[6] As the defendant did not pay the tax assessed for YAs 2011 to 2017 by the due date after the service of the Notices of Assessment, the amount of tax payable for the said YAs was increased by a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount unpaid pursuant to s 103 of the ITA . The amount of tax was increased by a further five percent (5%) because the defendant continued to fail to pay the outstanding amount of tax assessed plus the 10% increase within 60 days from the due date. Accordingly, with the 10% and 5% increases, the total amount of tax due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is RM10,335,292.36. The breakdown of the tax due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is as detailed in the table below:

[7] The defendant first filed an appeal against the assessments through Forms Q dated 5 April 2019 for each of the said YAs. The Forms Q were to the IRB under the cover of letters dated 12 April 2019 by her solicitors, Messrs Shafee & Co. However, the Forms Q were not in accordance with the format stipulated in ss 99 and 152 of the ITA . By a letter dated 16 April 2019, the IRB advised the defendant that the Forms Q must comply with the requisite statutory provisions to avoid her appeal from being rejected and that she may seek for an extension of time to file her appeal through Form N. The defendant then applied for an extension of time to file her appeal for the taxes assessed for YAs 2011 to 2017 through Forms N, all dated 3 May 2019.

[8] The DGIR approved her application and granted her an extension of time up to 26 July 2019 to file her appeal under sub-section 100(2)(a) of the ITA . The defendant filed her appeals again through Forms Q dated 18 July 2019 for YAs 2011 to 2017. On 7 August 2019, the defendant filed Form CP102 (Statement of Personal and Private Expenses) for YAs 2011 to 2017 and Form CP103 (Capital Statement) for YAs 2010 to 2017.

[9] On 24 July 2019, the IRB on behalf of the plaintiff filed this writ action for recovery of the sum of RM10,335,292.36, being the total amount of tax due and payable by the defendant for the YAs 2011 to 2017.

[10] The 20 November 2019, the IRB on behalf of the plaintiff filed the application in encl 8 to enter summary judgment against the defendant for its claim.

[11] The chronology of events in this case is set-out in the table below:

C. The Defendant's Case And