COURT ALLOWS MUKHRIZ'S APPLICATION TO STAY ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE INVOLVING OVER RM5 MILLION

KUALA LUMPUR,  April 16 (Bernama) -- The High Court here today allowed former Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir's application to stay an Additional Assessment Notice issued by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) pending the decision of his judicial review application to quash the notice.

Mukhriz had applied to quash the action of the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) which issued the notice for him to pay more than RM5 million for the assessment years 2017 to 2019.

Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh allowed the stay application by Mukhriz after hearing submissions from lawyer Nizamuddin Abdul Hamid, representing Mukhriz, and senior federal counsel Mohd Harris Hanapi, representing the IRB Director-General, named the first respondent.

The proceeding was also attended by federal counsel Ng Wee Li, representing Finance Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the Malaysian government, named as the second and third respondents, respectively.

Earlier, Mohd Harris submitted that the IRB objected to the stay application because if the application is granted, it would give the impression that taxpayers would not have to pay tax under Section 103 of the Income Tax Act 1967.

However, Nizamuddin said there was no provision in the Income Tax Act that prevented the court from granting a stay.

Mukhriz, 60, filed the judicial review application on Dec 20 last year.

In his application, Mukhriz, a businessman and politician, seeks to nullify the decision of the IRB director-general in issuing the Additional Assessment Notice for the 2017 to 2019 assessment years amounting to RM5,020,707.18. He argued that the decision was unlawful and unreasonable.

The Parti Pejuang Tanah Air (Pejuang) president further seeks a declaration that the penalty imposed under Section 113(2) of the Income Tax Act (ITA) 1967 is null and void, arguing that the imposition was ultra vires.

Mukhriz also requests declarations against Anwar, alleging abuse of authority. He claims that the second respondent improperly directed the first respondent to issue the Additional Assessment Notice and a certificate under Subsection 104(1) of the ITA 1967.

Mukhriz has also applied for a stay of enforcement on both the Additional Assessment Notice and the certificate pending the resolution of his judicial review application.

-- BERNAMA