JUDGMENT

Wong Mee Ling J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application for judicial review by the applicant pursuant to O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (encl 15) challenging the decision of the respondent to impose assessment rates retrospectively pursuant to an amendment to the valuation list.

[2] Having considered the cause papers, affidavits, written submissions of parties, and after having heard the oral submissions of the parties, I allowed the applicant's judicial review application with Costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid by the respondent to the applicant, subject to the allocatur fees.

[3] Below are the grounds of my decision.

Background

[4] The background facts in this suit are gathered from the cause papers and submissions filed by the parties and stated in chronological order.

[5] The Applicant is a company which carried out development of assets on land identified as Plot No 23A and Plot No 23B forming part of Lot No 11369 located within the administrative area of the respondent, Majlis Perbandaran Pengerang.

[6] The developments, collectively referred to as "Package 3", obtained their Certificate of Completion and Compliance ("CCC") on 24 July 2019. The details of the development for Package 3 are stated in para 7 of the applicant's Affidavit In Support in encl 2.

[7] The Respondent, in the exercise of its statutory powers as a local authority, undertook an assessment of the said development and determined that the improvements resulted in an increased value of the holding listed in the valuation list.

[8] Subsequently, the respondent issued a Notice of Amendment of the valuation list dated 13 April 2023, assigning an improved value of RM329,928,000.00 and imposing an annual assessment rate of RM1,319,712.00, stated to be effective from term 2/2019.

[9] The Applicant objected to the amendment and was afforded an opportunity to be heard at an inquiry session on 10 July 2023.

[10] Thereafter, by a letter dated 4 September 2023, the respondent imposed assessment rates retrospectively, and issued a bill dated 01.07.2023, which was received by the applicant on 5 September 2023.

[11] The Applicant paid the retrospective assessment sum of RM5,688,537.75 under protest and subsequently commenced judicial review proceedings to challenge, inter alia, the legality of the retrospective imposition of assessment rates.

[12] The dispute between the parties centres on whether the respondent has the statutory authority to impose assessment rates retrospectively pursuant to amendments to the valuation list.

[13] Leave to commence judicial review proceedings was granted on 6 March 2024.

[14] The Applicant sought, inter alia:

(a) A declaration that the respondent has no power to impose retrospective assessment rates;

(b) an order of certiorari to quash the respondent's decision;

(c) Refund of sums paid pursuant to the retrospective assessment; and

(d) Interest and costs.

Issues For Determination

[15] The Applicant has via Originating Summons filed in the Johor Bahru High Court sought to challenge the respondent's valuation towards the improved value and assessment rates of the applicant's assets.

[16] Therefore, the issue before this Court is:

(a) Whether the respondent has authority to impose the assessment rates on a retrospective basis based on the date of issuance of CCC; and

(b) Whether the respondent's decision is amenable to judicial review on grounds of illegality.

Court Analysis and Findings

Whether The Respondent Has Authority To Impose The Assessment Rates On Retrospective Basis Based On Date Of Issuance Of CCC

[17] The Applicant contends that the respondent, being a statutory body, can only act within powers expressly conferred by statute.

[18] The Applicant relies on ss 127, 133 and 144 of the Local Government Act 1976 and argues that:

(a) Section 127 governs imposition of rates prospectively;

(b) Section 133 limits the duration and nature of assessment rates; and

(c) Section 144 does not permit retrospective imposition of rates.

[19] It is submitted that The phr