JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant ("Defendant") against the Sessions Court decision dated 6 June 2024, granting summary judgment to the respondent ("Plaintiff") pursuant to O 14 Rules of 2012 (ROC 2012). The appeal was first heard before Justice Nurulhuda Nur'aini binti Mohamad Nor on 15 July 2025 and was adjourned to 27 August 2025 for further submissions. Following Her Ladyship's transfer to the Kuala Lumpur High Court , the matter is now before me. For ease of reference, parties are referred to by their previous names as they appeared before the Sessions Court .

[2] In arriving at my decision, I referred to the cause papers, the parties' written, additional and supplemental submissions, the bundles of authorities filed by both parties and the CMS recording of the hearing on 15 July 2025. This is my decision.

Background

[3] The plaintiff's claim against the defendant was for tax due and payable amounting to RM610,468.88 for the years of assessment 2020, 2019, 2018 (additional), 2017 (additional) and inclusive of 5% interest. On 6 June 2024, the Sessions Court allowed plaintiff's application for summary judgment under O 14 ROC 2012. Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed.

[4] The sole issue argued on appeal was whether service of the Notices of Assessment (Additional) for years 2018 and 2017 and Notices of Assessment for years 2019 and 2020 pursuant to subsection 145(2) Income Tax Act 1967 (Revised 1971) [Act 53] was duly effected. At the hearing before me, the counsel for the defendant further submitted that the argument is now focused on the Notices of Assessment (Additional) for years 2018 and 2017 only.

[5] The defendant contends that it has never received any of the notices and, therefore, could not appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. It argues the notices were not sent to its registered address or last known address at No 23, Jalan Sulam, Taman Sentosa, 80150 Johor Bahru, Johor ("Johor address"). The Defendant says the plaintiff knew of that Johor address as it appears in the Writ of Summons filed in the Court below.

[6] The plaintiff's position is that service was duly effected under subparagraph 145(2)(a) of Act 53 by posting the notices to the defendant's last known address at No 16C, 3rd Floor, Jalan Pandan 3/6A, Pandan Jaya, Kuala Lumpur ("Kuala Lumpur address"). According to the plaintiff, for the purpose of issuing the notices, the Kuala Lumpur address was the defendant's last known address in its record. This is based on the Company Income Tax Return Form (Borang C) Year of Assessment 2018 filed by the defendant through the e-filing platform pursuant to s 77A of Act 53. Any changes to the defendant's address or a change of the last known address from the Kuala Lumpur address were not communicated to the plaintiff.

Analysis

[7] At the outset, this Court is mindful that, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction, it should be slow to interfere with the decision of the trial Court unless it is shown that the trial Court is plainly wrong when arriving at the decision under appeal [see: UEM Group Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor; [2018] MLJ (Supp) 363; [2010] 9 CLJ 785; Azman Mahmood & Anor v. SJ Securities Sdn Bhd; [2012] 6 CLJ 573; MMC Oil & Gas Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Tan Bock Kwee & Sons Sdn Bhd; [2016] 2 MLJ 428; [2016] 4 CLJ 665].

[8] The appellate function has been restated in the recent Court of Appeal case of Ahmad Rubil Ahmad & Ors v. Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2025] 6 AMR 728, in reference to Civil and Criminal Appeals in Malaysia, 4th edn, as follows:

"[24] In his book, Civil and Criminal Appeals in Malaysia, 4th edn, learned author Tan Kay Heng has summarised the duty of the appellate Court as follows:

[6.013] However, the appellate Court is under a duty to intervene on the finding of fact of the trial Court where the trial Court has so fundamentally misdirected itself that one may safely say that no reasonable Court which h