Back
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] In the present suit, the plaintiff commenced an action against the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (1st defendant), and the Government of Malaysia (2nd defendant).
[2] The plaintiff sought for, inter alia, the following orders and reliefs:
a) A declaration that the First Deciding Order delivered on 27 August 1992 by the 1st defendant is legal and valid order with the force of law,
b) For an order that the Second Deciding Order delivered on 29 March 1995 by the 1st defendant be revoked and/or discharged and/or set aside and/or struck off; and
c) An order of declaration that the said Second Deciding Order delivered by the 1st defendant in Tax Appeal No PKR 551 is ultra vires and null and void, being a miscarriage of justice and/or an abuse process of the court and/or being unsustainable for the absence of any cause of action and/or being res judicata.
[3] The plaintiff acted in person whereas the 1st defendant is represented by the Senior Federal Counsel of the Attorney General's Chambers and the 2nd defendant is represented by the Senior Revenue Counsel of the Inland Revenue Board.
[4] Just before the commencement of the trial, both the 1st and 2nd defendants had filed the application to strike out the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim under encls 72 and 78 respectively.
[5] As both applications were filed at the late stage and in order not to delay the trial, I proceeded to hear it but I indicated to the parties that I would deliver the ruling at the end of the trial together with the decision after a full trial.
[6] On 30 October 2017, I allowed the 1st and 2nd defendants' application under encls 72 and 78 and struck out the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim. I ruled that the plaintiff's claim is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
[7] On the same date, ie 30 October 2017, at the conclusion of the trial, I ruled that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaratory reliefs and orders sought in his statement of claim as the First and Second Deciding Orders are both legal and valid orders and there is nothing inconsistent between the two. The plaintiff dissatisfied with the above decision and filed an appeal to the court of Appeal.
The Facts
[8] The plaintiff called two witnesses, ie the plaintiff himself and Madam Ngu Leh Yiing, the Interpreter of Miri High court whereas the defendants did not call any witnesses.
[9] As the plaintiff's facts of case are quite extensive and related to few other earlier cases including one dated back in 1986 which the plaintiff has personal records and his previous appearances before the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, I propose to reproduce the plaintiff's version as per his written submission as follows:
"2.1 "The 2nd defendant, the Government of Malaysia (GOM) through the Inland Revenue Department, Miri issued seven Notices of Assessment against the plaintiff claiming for alleged taxes, namely:
(1) Notice of Additional Assessment 1979 dated the 19 November 1981;
(2) Notice of Assessment for 1980 dated the 11 March 1982;
(3) Notice of Additional Assessment for 1981 dated the 3 September 1983;
(4) Notice of Assessment for 1982 dated the 3 September 1983;
(5) Notice of Assessment for 1983 dated the 4 February 1984;
(6) Notice of (Reduced) Assessment for 1984 dated the 15 December 1984; and
(7) Notice of Assessment for 1986 dated the 5 July 1986.
allegedly based on IOUs of the salaries and commissions of Takang Timber Sdn Bhd which were not paid to or received by the plaintiff but posted and entered into Takang Timber Sdn Bhd's account book, ledgers or record by the company's accountant and auditor.
2.2 The GOM commenced a Writ action against the plaintiff on 19 February 1986 vide Suit No MR. 46 of 1986 claiming for RM231,016.95.
2.3 The plaintiff disputed the GOM's aforesaid claim in the court but the GOM invoked its statutory powers and relied on
s 142 Income Tax Act 1967 instead of proceeding to t
