KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has granted Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir permission to proceed with judicial review proceedings aimed at overturning an Additional Assessment Notice exceeding RM5 million, issued by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) for the assessment years 2017 to 2019.
According to BERNAMA News Agency, Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh also approved Mukhriz’s request for a temporary stay on the RM5 million payment, pending a hearing set for April 16. Judge Amarjeet indicated that the case raised significant issues warranting further judicial scrutiny. Representing Mukhriz was counsel Nizamuddin Abdul Hamid, while senior federal counsel Wan Shahida Wan Omar represented the three respondents in the case.
On December 20, Mukhriz, a businessman and politician, filed the judicial review application, naming the chief executive officer or director-general of Inland Revenue, Finance Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and the Malaysian government as the first, second, and third respondents, respectively. In his application, Mukhriz seeks to nullify the decision of the Inland Revenue chief executive officer or director-general to issue the additional Assessment Notice for the 2017 to 2019 assessment years, totaling RM5,020,707.18, arguing the decision was unlawful and unreasonable.
Mukhriz, who is also the president of Parti Pejuang Tanah Air (Pejuang), 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. He also requests declarations against the second respondent, alleging that the Finance Minister abused his authority by improperly directing the issuance of the Additional Assessment Notice and a certificate under Subsection 104(1) of the ITA 1967.
Mukhriz’s application includes a request to stay enforcement of both the Additional Assessment Notice and the certificate pending resolution of his judicial review application. He contends that errors were made in assessing his tax liability, specifically the incorrect classification of certain unexplained expenses as additional income, leading to an improper tax obligation.
Mukhriz alleges that the IRB acted improperly by including proceeds from his share disposals in OPCOM Holdings Berhad and dividends from M Ocean Capital Sdn Bhd as taxable income, though such income is non-taxable under law. He claims this misclassification results in unfair and unequal treatment, citing the IRB’s own stance that such categories of income are non-taxable.
Furthermore, Mukhriz asserts that the Additional Assessment Notices for 2017 and 2018 were issued beyond the statutory limitation period specified in Section 91(1) of the ITA 1967. Under this section, notices must be issued within five years unless fraud, willful default, or negligence by the taxpayer is demonstrated. He emphasized that the IRB has not provided evidence of fraud, willful default, or negligence on his part, rendering the notices flawed and invalid.