Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ:

[1] Datuk Haji Ghani Gilong, a businessman ("the taxpayer") and the respondent to this appeal, was assessed to income tax and increase of income tax (inclusive of penalties and interest) levied under sub-sections 4, 5 and 5A to s 103, of the Income Tax Act, 1967 ("the Act") for various sums, amounting in all, to RM504,052, in respect of the years of assessment 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1982, 1983, 1984, pursuant to notices of assessment, duly sent by ordinary mail, and which were deemed to have been served, having regard to the provisions of s 145(2)(c) of the Act and were, by s 103(1) of the Act, payable on service of the same, whether or not he appealed under s 99 of the Act, against the assessment or composite assessments, as the case might be.

[2] A certificate purporting to have been issued under s 142(1) of the Act had been signed by the Acting Assistant Director General Puan Norlina bte Zainal for and on behalf of the Director General of Inland Revenue ("the Director General") giving the name and address of the taxpayer, and was, if valid, by reason of that provision, sufficient evidence of the amount, so due, as aforesaid, and sufficient authority for the Court to give judgment, accordingly.

[3] The revenue having caused to be issued in the name of the Government of the Federation of Malaysia, the writ of summons herein, accompanied by a statement of claim annexed thereto, against the taxpayer, claiming the total amount aforesaid, and the taxpayer having entered appearance thereto, the Revenue had also caused to be issued a summons for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of the High , 1980. The taxpayer had affirmed and filed an affidavit in opposition, wherein he had raised three separate defences; namely:

(1) the purported certificate signed by the Acting Assistant Director General of Inland Revenue, was not a certificate within the meaning of s 142(1) of the Act, as it was not signed by the Director General personally;

(2) the claim made in the writ of summons was premature inasmuch as the taxpayer's appeal against the assessments aforesaid was still pending before the Special Commissioners and so barred by reason of art 13(1) of the Federal Constitution which provides that "no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with the law."

(3) the assessment to additional income tax for the year of assessment 1971 had been levied as long ago as 4 August 1984, which was more than 12 years prior to the date of the issue of the writ of summons and, therefore, the claim relating thereto was barred by limitation under s 91(1) of the Act, as illustrated by the cases of Chong Woo Yit v. Government Of Malaysia, [1989] 1 MLJ 473, followed in Government Of Malaysia v. Gan Chuan Lian @ Gan Puay Chee; [1992] 1 MLJ 449; [1992] 2 BLJ 176.

[4] In the event, the Judge in the Court below (Mr Justice Syed Ahmad Idid), had rejected the first and the second of the above defences but upheld the third, and, in consequence, had made an order deducting the sum of RM51,244.16 claimed by way of additional assessment for the year of assessment 1971, from the total sum claimed, being the amount of RM504,052. He had also granted a stay of execution of the judgment in respect of the balance of the sum claimed until determination of the taxpayer's appeal against the assessments aforesaid by the Special Commissioners. From his decision, in so far as it held that the claim for additional assessment for the year of assessment 1971 was barred by limitation and his order for stay as regards the balance of the sum claimed, the Government of Malaysia has appealed to this Court.