Tuesday, October 15

IRB applies for Tengku Adnan tax case to be decided through summary judgement

0

KUALA LUMPUR: The Inland Revenue Board (IRB) has applied for its suit against former Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, seeking RM57.17 million in income tax arrears for the period between 2012 and 2017, to be decided via summary judgment.

Deputy High Court Registrar Idamasliza Maarof set Dec 12 to hear the application after the management of the case in her chambers today, attended by Senior Revenue Counsel Norhisham Ahmad and Al-Hummidallah Idrus representing the IRB and Datuk Satharuban Sivasubramaniam acting on behalf of Tengku Adnan.

Based on court’s information, the IRB as a plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.

A summary judgement is where a court decides a case without hearing testimony of witnesses.

Defendant (Tengku Adnan) also filed an application for a stay of proceeding under Order 92, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.

The court fixed Nov 15 for hearing of defendant’s application and Dec 12 for plaintiff’s application.

On July 24, the Malaysian government filed a writ of summons and statement of claim through the IRB in the High Court here naming Tengku Adnan, who is also the former Umno Secretary-General.

According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed that Tengku Adnan still owed income tax for the year of assessment 2012 until the year of assessment 2017 as stated in the Notice of Assessment dated March 15, 2019.

It said the Notice of Evaluation was sent by the Registrar of Acceptance (AR) to the defendant on March 20 to his last address and that the Notice of Appeal was received and signed on March 22 by the return of the yellow Registered Acceptance card.

The plaintiffs claim that because Tengku Adnan failed to pay the income tax amount from 2012 to 2017 within 30 days from the date of filing of the Notice of Assessment stipulated under Section 103 of the Income Tax Act 1967, a 10 percent tax increase was imposed.

The plaintiff said the defendant still failed to pay the entire income tax amount along with the 10 percent increase within the 60 days stipulated under Section 103, adding that a further five percent tax increase would be imposed on the defendant.

It claimed that the defendant still failed to pay the owed income tax due, including a total increase of RM57,167,069.35.

The total is RM64,444.38 (2012); RM6,614,861.59 (2013); RM8,887,576.69 (2014); RM9,198,523.67 (2015); RM5,520,818.05 (2016); and RM26,880,844.97 (2017).

The plaintiff therefore sought from the defendant a sum of RM57,167,069.35, interest on the sum of RM57,167,069.35 at a rate of five per cent per annum from the date of judgment to the date of realisation, costs and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. — Bernama