The court determined that stamp duty on property transfer is based on the greater value of consideration or market value, with JPPH's valuation prevailing unless proven incorrect.

[1] On 25 August 2020, LPB Development Sdn Bhd (LPB) entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Symphony Hills Sdn Bhd (Symphony) to acquire a property for RM29,855,022.12 (the said property).

[2] On 2 September 2022, LPB, Symphony, and the Plaintiff executed a Novation Agreement, under which the Plaintiff replaced LPB as the purchaser of the said property. On 24 October 2023, the Plaintiff signed the Memorandum of Transfer (Form 14A) and submitted a stamp duty adjudication application to the Collector of Stamp Duty (the Collector). To determine the applicable stamp duty, the Collector sought a valuation from the Valuation and Property Services Department (JPPH) which assessed the market value of the property at RM40,350,000.00. Unsatisfied with the valuation by JPPH, the Plaintiff filed Notice of Objection under s 38A(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 ( SA 1949), arguing that the stamp duty should be based on the consideration price instead. JPPH responded on 21 December 2023, maintaining the original market valuation. The Plaintiff seeks the opinion of the Court on whether the stamp duty imposed on Form 14A, based on JPPH's valuation of RM40,350,000.00, was correctly assessed under Item 32(a) First Schedule 1949, or whether it should instead be determined based on the consideration stated in the transaction.

[3] The Plaintiff submitted that the value of RM29,855,022.12 consideration reflected the true market value of the land, as the transaction was conducted fairly between unrelated parties under normal market conditions (the market value was a real transaction, not an estimation). The Plaintiff further submitted that, on 17 November 2022, an application was made to the Economic Planning Unit of the Prime Minister's Department (EPU), accompanied by four (4) valuation reports (one from JPPH and three from private valuers) for the EPU's review and consideration. Subsequently, on 2 June 2023, the EPU approved the disposal of the Land at a consideration of RM29,855,022.12. The Plaintiff contended that it had acted responsibly and in compliance with regulatory requirements, ensuring that the disposal/acquisition of the Land was in the best interest of the respective companies. This was demonstrated by the buyer's (LPB) initiative in obtaining multiple valuation reports and securing EPU's approval for the transaction.

[4] On the other hand, the Collector submitted that the Form 14A as an instrument to transfer of property was chargeable pursuant to Item 32(a) First Schedule SA 1949 (read together with subsection 4(1 1949). Under Item 32(a) First Schedule 1949, stamp duty would be charged an ad valorem duty based on either the consideration amount or the market value of the property, whichever is higher. In this case, although the property was sold for RM29,855,022.12, JPPH assessed its market value at a higher figure. The Collector took note of the valuation reports prepared by private valuers but maintained the position, based on trite law, that the valuation conducted by JPPH should be given priority in determining the market value of the subject property. The Court may only rely on a valuation prepared by a private valuer if the valuation conducted by JPPH was proven to be erroneous or in contravention of the law. Despite that, on the issue of interest pleaded by the Plaintiff, the Collector submitted that, in the event the Court decided in the Plaintiff's favour, no interest should be awarded-by virtue of subsection 39(4) 1949.