High Court grants Na'imah's application for judicial review
SHAH ALAM: The High Court on Tuesday granted Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid, wife of the late former Finance Minister Tun Dr Daim Zainuddin, permission to initiate judicial review proceedings to annul the RM313.8mil tax claim by the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN).
Lawyer S Saravana Kumar, representing Na'imah, 68, said the court found the application for judicial review had merit.
Speaking outside the court, he said High Court Judge Dr Shahnaz Sulaiman made this decision after rejecting the Attorney General's Chambers' objection.
He stated that the court found Na'imah's application was neither trivial nor vexatious, and there were legal questions that needed to be heard substantively.
'We have two weeks to serve notice to LHDN,' he said, accompanied by lawyer Dharshini Sharma.
Na'imah was not present for the proceedings and was represented by her lawyers.
In the proceedings, Federal Counsel Sheryn Yong appeared on behalf of the Attorney General's Department.
On October 18, 2024, the High Court ordered Na'imah to pay RM313.82mil in outstanding income tax to LHDN.
Earlier, on August 19 of the same year, Na'imah filed an application for judicial review against the LHDN notice for additional tax related to the 2018 assessment year.
In her supporting affidavit, Na'imah claimed the tax assessment against her was based on baseless claims.
Initially, the High Court Judge dismissed her application for an interim stay on the Notice of Assessment.
At that time, the court found no exceptional circumstances justified Na'imah's application for an interim stay and emphasised the respondent's authority to enforce tax collection under the Income Tax Act 1967.
In its judgment, it was stated that tax payment must be made regardless of the amount, even during ongoing legal disputes.
Consequently, Na'imah appealed the High Court Judge's decision in the Court of Appeal and filed a Notice of Motion for a stay.
The Court of Appeal judges, on October 28 of the same year, unanimously decided to grant a stay to Na'imah until the appeal hearing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Borneo Post
18 hours ago
- Borneo Post
Petros vs Petronas: Failure to comply with DGO constitutes ‘unconscionable conduct', court told
Fong (right) exits the courtroom after the proceedings. KUCHING (July 11): The Distribution of Gas Ordinance (DGO) 2016 is a written law passed by the Sarawak Legislature and is therefore a written law in force in Malaysia, the High Court here was told today. State Legal Counsel Dato Sri JC Fong said Petroliam Nasional Berhad's (Petronas) failure to comply with the DGO and continuing to supply gas without a licence issued under the DGO, and then preventing other licensed gas suppliers or producers from selling gas to Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) as the state's gas aggregator, constitutes 'unconscionable conduct' on the part of national oil firm. In his submission to the court in the lawsuit brought by Petros against Petronas, Fong, appearing for the Sarawak government, said Petros is invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction to declare that the demand by Petronas on a bank guarantee issued by Maybank Islamic Berhad is 'unconscionable, unlawful, null and void'. He said all parties, including the federal and Sarawak governments, have agreed that 'unconscionability' is a ground to restrain a beneficiary of a bank guarantee or performance bond from making a call on a bank guarantee or performance bond. 'In this case, the underlying contract is the Sarawak Gas Sales Agreement (SGSA) dated Dec 30, 2019. 'The bank guarantee was issued pursuant to this underlying contract to secure payment for gas supplied by Petronas to Petros. Petronas is the beneficiary of the bank guarantee. 'Petronas did not sign the SGSA because the PDA (Petroleum Development Act) 1974 guarantees the role of Petronas nationwide,' said Fong. He said Petronas entered into the SGSA because it had sold and transferred its business of supplying gas to customers in Bintulu and Miri to Petros, and is selling gas to Petros to enable the state-owned company to fulfil its obligations to its customers who were previously customers of Petronas. 'This SGSA has nothing to do with the PDA or the business of Petronas under the PDA, which had been sold and transferred to Petros. There is nothing in the SGSA which even suggests that Petronas entered into this SGSA in pursuance of the PDA. 'It was purely a commercial contract based on purely commercial consideration, but the mode of performance thereof must not contravene any written law in force in Malaysia.' Fong said for Petronas to consciously disobey, disregard, and disrespect the DGO amounts to a contravention of an important constitutional safeguard and an attempt to undermine the Sarawak government's executive authority under Article 80(2) of the Federal Constitution. 'This itself is clearly unconscionable conduct which this honourable court should not condone at all. 'Consequently, the calling upon the bank guarantee by Petronas, in these circumstances to obtain payment from Petros for gas supplied in contravention of the DGO and also in breach of Article 24.2 of the SGSA, is clearly unconscionable and unlawful,' he said. Article 24.2 of the SGSA stipulates that 'Nothing in this Agreement shall entitle the Parties (i.e. Petronas and Petros) to exercise the rights, privileges and powers conferred on it in a manner which would contravene any written law for the time being in force in Malaysia.' Petros is seeking a court order for the return of RM7.95 million paid to Petronas under the bank guarantee. The conflict began in October 2024 when Petronas called on the bank guarantee in response to a RM28.1 million demand from Petros related to gas supply. Petros then initiated legal proceedings against Petronas and sought an injunction to stop the disbursement of the funds. However, the injunction request became academic after Maybank Islamic Berhad released the payment to Petronas. Petronas was represented by counsels Datuk Dr Cyrus Das and Khoo Guan Huat, while Petros was represented by counsels Tan Sri Cecil Abraham, Sim Hui Chuang and Lim Lip Tze. The proceeding was heard before Judicial Commissioner Datuk Faridz Gohim Abdullah, who fixed Aug 25 and 26 for the next hearing. DGO Distribution of Gas Ordinance JC Fong Petronas Petros
Sinar Daily
19 hours ago
- Sinar Daily
Court of Appeal sets Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. 11 Jun 2025 05:44pm The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. PUTRAJAYA - The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words "offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is "obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words "offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a "permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making "offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective. - BERNAMA More Like This
New Straits Times
20 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Court sets July 2 for decision on shipping company's pre-trial discovery application against RHB
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here today fixed July 2 to decide on a pre-trial discovery application filed by Maritime Network Sdn Bhd against RHB Bank Berhad concerning the financial institution's internal guidelines and due diligence procedures governing foreign-exchange transactions. Judge Leong Wai Hong fixed the date after hearing submissions by both parties in chambers last Friday. This was confirmed by the shipping company's counsel, P. Taneswaran, and the bank's counsel, Gan Khong Aik, when contacted. According to them, the proceeding is scheduled at 9 am on the said date. Maritime Network filed an originating summons on March 3 this year, seeking a court order to compel the bank to disclose the financial institution's internal guidelines and due diligence procedures governing foreign-exchange transactions. The action was initiated by the company's director, Datuk Seri through Messrs Tanes, Khoo & Paulraj at the High Court here, naming the RHB Bank Berhad as the defendant. Maritime Network, established in 2002, commenced the action after discovering that several international fund transfers into its multi-currency USD account had been returned without prior notice or adequate justification. According to the affidavit, these transfers, though originating from previously unfamiliar senders, made explicit reference to valid invoices issued by the company. Despite Maritime Network's request that the bank withhold any reversal pending a thorough review, the funds were unilaterally returned. Meanwhile, the bank claimed that it has complied with the required financial standard known as Minimum Due Diligence (MDD).
