Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for WIRAMUDA (M) SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI...
WIRAMUDA (M) SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI - 2022 MarsdenLR 1249
: The court held that judicial review is not available where an alternative remedy exists, except in very exceptional circumstances. This principle was affirmed in the Supreme Court case of Government of Malaysia & Anor v. Jagdis Singh [1987] 2 MLJ 185; [1987] CLJ 110, which established that while judicial review remains discretionary, it should not normally issue when an appeal provision is available, unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction, a blatant failure to perform a statutory duty, or a serious breach of natural justice. In this case, the appellant had an alternative remedy via appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax under section 99(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967, and therefore judicial review was not appropriate. The court concluded that the High Court did not commit procedural impropriety in proceeding with judicial review, as the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying such a remedy.Checking relevance for KIND ACTION (M) SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI...KIND ACTION (M) SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI - 2022 MarsdenLR 987
: The court held that judicial review should not normally be granted where an alternative remedy exists, such as appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. It emphasized that judicial review is discretionary and only appropriate in very exceptional circumstances, particularly when there is a clear lack of jurisdiction, a blatant failure to perform a statutory duty, or a serious breach of natural justice. In this case, the applicant had an available statutory remedy through the Special Commissioners, making judicial review inappropriate. The court concluded that proceeding with judicial review despite the availability of this alternative remedy constituted procedural impropriety, and thus the application was dismissed.Checking relevance for NORRIHA ABDUL RAHMAN LWN. PEJABAT PENDIDIKAN DAERAH KOTA BHARU & YANG LAIN...NORRIHA ABDUL RAHMAN LWN. PEJABAT PENDIDIKAN DAERAH KOTA BHARU & YANG LAIN - 2025 MarsdenLR 3271
: The court upheld preliminary objections, ruling that the applicant did not exhaust statutory remedies and failed to disclose essential facts in his application. Judicial review should not have been invoked here, as the applicant had alternative statutory remedies available and failed to make full and frank disclosure, which is a prerequisite for judicial review under Rule 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. This confirms that the court proceeded with judicial review despite the availability of alternative remedies, which constitutes procedural impropriety.Checking relevance for SIME DARBY PROPERTY (SELANGOR) SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI...SIME DARBY PROPERTY (SELANGOR) SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI - 2022 MarsdenLR 1274
: The court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy—namely, appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax—precluded the grant of leave for judicial review, as the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. The court emphasized that judicial review is discretionary and should only be entertained when there are exceptional circumstances justifying bypassing the alternative remedy. The Federal Court in Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang confirmed that the availability of a statutory appeal remedy is a ground for refusing leave to apply for judicial review, and this principle may be considered at various stages of proceedings, including the inter partes stage or at final hearing. Therefore, the court properly declined to proceed with judicial review despite the applicant''''s claims of procedural impropriety, because the applicant had not exhausted the available alternative remedy.Checking relevance for REGIONAL LAND SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI...REGIONAL LAND SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI - 2023 MarsdenLR 2100
: The court held that the existence of an alternative remedy—namely, the statutory appeal mechanism before the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT)—excluded the availability of judicial review. The court emphasized that judicial review requires exceptional circumstances and that the proper forum for tax disputes is the SCIT, not the court. The applicant''''s attempt to bypass this established process was deemed an abuse of process. The court cited the Federal Court decision in Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang, which confirmed that the existence and non-exercise of a statutory remedy (such as appeal to SCIT) is a valid ground for refusing leave to apply for judicial review, and can be considered at any stage of the proceedings, including the final hearing.
