Noorin Badaruddin J:

JUDGMENT

[1]This is a judicial review application filed by the Applicant for reliefs prayed for in its Notice of Application dated 7.2.2020.

[2]By this application, the Applicant is seeking inter alia the following reliefs:

a.an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent contained in the letter of the 2^nd Respondent to the 3^rd Respondent dated 8.11.2019 which was conveyed by the 3^rd Respondent to the Applicant vide the 3^rd Respondent’s electronic mail (“email”) dated 12.11.2019 and the 2^nd Respondent’s letter dated 29.1.2020 (the “Personal Data Decision”) which purports to hold the Applicant may/should disclose information in the Applicant’s possession pertaining to its customers which falls within the definition of “Personal Data” in section 4Personal Data Protection Act 2010(“PDPA”) to the 3^rd Respondent pursuant to section 39 (b) (ii)PDPAsection 81Income Tax Act 1967

b.a Declaration that the Personal Data Decision is invalid in law;

c.an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 3^rd Respondent in adopting and conveying the decision of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent;

d.a Declaration that the Director General of Inland Revenue’s (“DGIR”) decision is invalid in law;

e.a Declaration that the assertions, claims and/or demands made by the 3^rd Respondent in purporting to request or demand access to, or disclosure of, the Personal Data from the Applicant purportedly pursuant to, among others, section 81Income Tax Act 1967(“ITA”) and/or sections 39 (b) (i)39 (b) (ii)45 (2) (a) (iii)PDPA“DGIR’s Demands”) are invalid in law;

f.a Declaration in that the 3^rd Respondent is bound by and cannot disregard the provisions of the PDPA generally, and sections 39 (b)45 (2) (a)PDPAsection 5 (1)PDPA“Protection”), by purporting to request or demand access to, or disclosure of, such Personal Data from the Applicant, or to otherwise process such Personal Data, until and unless the consent of the Applicant’s Customers is obtained by the 3^rd Respondent or the 3^rd Respondent has demonstrated that there is reasonable suspicion that any specific, identified and/or identifiable Customer had not complied with any material provision of the ITA relating to the assessment or collection of tax to warrant a disclosure of the Personal Data of that particular Customer, and/or the 3^rd Respondent has established that there is no real, actual and substantive prejudice against the purpose for which such Personal Data had been collected by the Applicant to the satisfaction of the High Court as evidenced by an appropriate court order for disclosure to the 3^rd Respondent;

g.a Declaration that Part V of the ITA generally, and section 81ITA^rd Respondent to disregard the Protection that protects the Personal Data, by purporting to request or demand access to, or disclosure of, such Personal Data from the Applicant, or to otherwise process such Personal Data, until and unless the consent of the Applicant’s Customers is obtained by the 3^rd Respondent or the 3^rd Respondent has demonstrated that there is reasonable suspicion that any specific, identified and/or identifiable Customer had not complied with any material provision of the ITA relating to the assessment or collection of tax so as to warrant a disclosure of the Personal Data of that particular Customer, and/or the 3^rd Respondent has established that there is no real, actual and substantive prejudice against the purposes for which such Personal Data had been collected by the Applicant to the satisfaction of the High Court as evidenced by an appropriate court order for disclosure to the 3^rd Respondent;

h.a Declaration that the Protection under · the PDPA generally, and as referred to in section 8PDPA^rd Respondent or the 3^rd Respondent had demonstrated that there is reasonable suspicion that any specific, identified and/or identifiable Customer had not complied with any material provision of the ITA relating to the assessment or collection of tax so as to warrant a disclosure of