|
Issue #39/2019
26 September 2019
|
To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.
Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.
|
New This Week
|
TENAGA NASIONAL BHD v. MAYARIA SDN BHD & ANOR [2019] 8 CLJ 786
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LIM YEE LAN JCA, BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA, HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(IM)(NCVC)-1077-07-2015]
12 NOVEMBER 2018
Where there are billing arrears due to meter tampering and the tampered meter has been rectified or replaced, it is not lawful for Tenaga Nasional Berhad to issue a notice of demand and notice of disconnection of electricity supply; its recourse for payment is via a civil action pursuant to s. 38(5) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990.
UTILITIES: Electricity supply – Disconnection – Discovery of meter-tampering at customer’s premises – Tampered meter removed and replaced with new one – Electricity supplier sent notice of demand for re-calculated quantum of losses of revenue and statutory notice to disconnect electricity supply at premises – Whether notice of demand good in law and valid – Whether electricity supplier entitled to disconnect consumer’s electricity supply – Whether electricity supplier suffered further losses after replacement of tampered meter – Whether electricity supplier could claim amount owing through civil proceedings only – Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 38(1), (2), (3) & (5)
-
Gnana Parkas Anthony lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 575 (CA) mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Gnana Parkas Anthony [Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45B-16-12/2015]
-
Ho Kok Leong v. PP & Another Appeal [2019] 1 LNS 451 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Ho Kok Leong & Anor [Criminal Trial No: 45A-01-02/2016]
Legal Network Series
|
NUR ALI lwn. VARGHESE MATHEW & SATU LAGI GANTI RUGI: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap awad - Tuntutan ganti rugi am bagi kecederaan diri - Sama ada hakim bicara telah bergantung kepada nas undang-undang dan laporan-laporan perubatan - Sama ada hakim bicara telah memberi alasan dan justifikasi terhadap awad yang diberinya - Sama ada awad hakim bicara wajar diganggu GANTI RUGI: Kehilangan pendapatan - Taksiran - Kehilangan pendapatan semasa cuti sakit - Sama ada tolakan perbelanjaan semasa wajar dibuat - Sama ada perbelanjaan semasa wujud semasa kemalangan GANTI RUGI: Kecederaan diri - Kos perubatan - Bil rawatan hospital penawar - Sama ada hanya 1/3 daripada jumlah kos hospital penawar sewajarnya dibenarkan - Sama ada kemasukan ke hospital penawar merupakan pilihan plaintif - Sama ada plaintif telah memitigasikan perbelanjaan perubatan
|
|
|
FOO YET CHINE (P) lwn. LEONG MENG KUAN (L) UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Anak - Penjagaan - Hak penjagaan, kawalan dan pemeliharaan anak tidak sah taraf - Kanak-kanak perempuan berusia 6 tahun - Sama ada Mahkamah boleh mengguna pakai prinsip Common Law berdasarkan kepada peruntukan s. 27 Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 - Sama ada ibu kandung kepada anak tidak sah taraf berhak mendapat hak penjagaan dan kawalan - Sama ada kehadiran seorang ibu di dalam kehidupan anak diperlukan - Sama ada kasih sayang seorang ibu diiktiraf sebagai suatu bentuk kebajikan atau kepentingan kepada kanak-kanak
|
|
|
SARJ KUMAR v. KETUA PENGARAH PENDAFTARAN NEGARA & ANOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Leave to apply for judicial review - Certiorari to quash decision of National Registration Department in rejecting application to remove original name in chip of identity card - Chip contained both original and new name whilst on identity card it stated applicant's new name - Whether a mandatory requirement for original name to be inserted in chip of identity card - Whether removal of original name was against regulation 5(2) and Schedule 1A of National Registration Regulations 1990 - Whether application was frivolous and vexatious
|
|
|
ISLAND CONCEPT SDN BHD v. LIM YUN CHEOW @ LIM JUN CHIEOW & ORS CONTRACT: Sale of land - Existence - Owner died whilst negotiations were still going on - Negotiations put on hold subsequent to passing of owner - Reliance on draft sale and purchase agreement - Plaintiff had no money and intention to buy land in own name - Whether there was a concluded contract binding the parties - Whether sale and purchase agreement was finalized - Whether all negotiations were subject to contract
|
|
|
LEARNERGY SDN BHD & ANOR v. ABDUL JALIL OTHMAN TORT: Malicious prosecution - Police report - Police report was lodged to safeguard interest - Defendant lodged report following plaintiff's failure to return paintings - Inability to contact plaintiff and get updates on sale of paintings - Whether police report was lodged with malicious intent to pressure plaintiff to return paintings - Whether words in police report imputed criminal impropriety on plaintiff - Whether defendant was actuated by malice when he made police report CONTRACT: Termination - Termination by conduct - Unconditional return of paintings - Absence of reservation of rights or allegations of breach of contract - Whether conduct of unconditionally returning paintings and acceptance thereof was clear indication of intention of parties to bring contract to an end - Whether principles of waiver, estoppel and termination by conduct operated CONTRACT: Breach - Damages - Breach of covenant - Write-ups on abstract modern paintings - Whether alleged breach of covenant wholly misplaced and untenable in law - Whether there was any request for write-ups for paintings when they were put up for sale - Whether write-ups to abstract modern paintings were necessary - Whether there was waiver for requirement for write-ups - Whether there was basis to claim for damages for alleged breach of contract
|
CLJ 2019 Volume 8 (Part 6)
The appellant had been overly naïve in travelling on a fully paid trip from KLIA to Chennai to New Delhi to Colombo and finally back to KLIA only for the purported purpose of collecting sarees in New Delhi and this factor, coupled with the clandestine manner of the travel arrangements and the fact that the luggage containing 2,137g of dangerous drugs was handed to him in New Delhi by a person unknown to him could only go to show wilful blindness on his part. The defence of innocent carrier can never succeed on these facts.
Yuvaneswaran Rajoo v. PP [2019] 8 CLJ 739 [FC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Whether accused person had custody and control of drugs - Whether trial judge made inference of trafficking solely on quantity of drugs - Whether trial judge invoked double presumptions under ss. 37(d) and 37(da) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 or made affirmative finding of direct trafficking under s. 2 - Whether trial judge erred in invoking both ss. 37(d) and 37(da) - Whether accused person innocent carrier
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Whether trial judge erred in invoking both ss. 37(d) and 37(da) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('DDA') - Whether accused person had custody and control of drugs - Whether trial judge made inference of trafficking solely on quantity of drugs - Whether trial judge invoked double presumptions under ss. 37(d) and 37(da) or made affirmative finding of direct trafficking under s. 2 of DDA - Contradictions in evidence - Whether caused serious miscarriage of justice to accused person - Whether accused person innocent carrier - Whether conviction of accused person safe
David Wong Dak Wah CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Balia Yusof Wahi, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Abang Iskandar, Nallini Pathmanathan FCJJ
- For the appellant - N Sivananthan & Jasmine Cheong; M/s Sivananthan
- For the respondent - Norinna Bahadun; DPP
An application for ancillary conjugal relief made some 18 years after the decree nisi was made absolute cannot be entertained by the court for reason of inordinate delay; more so when the orders sought for, being the subject matter of trust, fell outside the realm of s. 76(1), Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.
Ng Yuet Mooi v. Leong Yee Heim [2019] 8 CLJ 767 [CA]
FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial property - Ancillary relief - Application for - Division of matrimonial assets - Parties agreed to defer division of assets to future date - Application by petitioner husband 18 years after decree nisi made absolute - Whether court retains jurisdiction on matters of division of assets even after decree nisi made absolute - Application to meet needs of children - Children past age of child - Whether needs of children relevant consideration - Whether delay in application accounted for - Whether husband had locus standi - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 76(1)
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Badariah Sahamid, Mary Lim JJCA
- For the appellant - In person
- For the respondent - Foo Yet Ngo & Kiran Dhaliwal; M/s Y N Foo & Partners
- Amicus curiae - Kan Weng Hin & Jillian Yuen Jie Ying
Where there are billing arrears due to meter tampering and the tampered meter has been rectified or replaced, it is not lawful for Tenaga Nasional Berhad to issue a notice of demand and notice of disconnection of electricity supply; its recourse for payment is via a civil action pursuant to s. 38(5) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Mayaria Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] 8 CLJ 786 [CA]
UTILITIES: Electricity supply - Disconnection - Discovery of meter-tampering at customer's premises - Tampered meter removed and replaced with new one - Electricity supplier sent notice of demand for re-calculated quantum of losses of revenue and statutory notice to disconnect electricity supply at premises - Whether notice of demand good in law and valid - Whether electricity supplier entitled to disconnect consumer's electricity supply - Whether electricity supplier suffered further losses after replacement of tampered meter - Whether electricity supplier could claim amount owing through civil proceedings only - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 38(1), (2), (3) & (5)
Lim Yee Lan, Badariah Sahamid, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JJCA
- For the appellants - Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan & Nur Fardhiah Mohd Nawawi; M/s Azmi & Assocs
- For the respondents - Kalearasu K Veloo; M/s SF Chan & Co
Where there is a claim for damages for wrongful termination by an insurance agent against the insurance company the agent must prove that he is entitled to recover damages falling under s. 74 of the Contracts Act 1950; exemplary damages will not be awarded in a contractual claim nor will aggravated damages unless there is proof of a breach of natural justice.
Hasnul Hanis Badrul v. Allianz General Insurance Company (Malaysia) Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 800 [HC]
CONTRACT: Agreement - Termination - Wrongful termination of agency agreement - Whether agency agreement could be terminated by giving 14 days' written notice without having to assign any reasons - Whether s. 158 of Contracts Act 1950 applicable - Whether insurance agent entitled to recover damages/losses - Quantum of damages - Assessment of - Whether insurance agent only entitled to loss of commission
DAMAGES: Assessment - Quantum of - Wrongful termination of agency agreement - Whether insurance agent entitled to damages for loss of reputation - Whether insurance agent adduced proof to justify being awarded aggravated and exemplary damages - Whether insurance agent only entitled to loss of commission for 55 days between date his agency was purportedly terminated to date when it was rightfully and validly terminated
Wong Chee Lin JC
- For the plaintiff - Aini Suraya Mohd Saifuddin; M/s Yusfarizal, Aziz & Zaid
- For the defendant - Tan Keng Teck & Foo Siew Yin; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
To prove poor performance of a senior management employee, the Industrial Court cannot apply the general test used for ordinary employees. The test to be applied is whether the company’s upper management, in the absence of bad faith, is dissatisfied with the employee’s performance, and if so, whether the employee has been notified of same. The company employer is not required to prove actual poor performance.
HLG Capital Bhd v. Andrew Chuah Khim Peik [2019] 8 CLJ 817 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash award of Industrial Court - Dismissal of high-ranking officer on grounds of poor performance - Proper test to be applied - Whether Industrial Court erred in applying general test to senior management employee - Whether Industrial Court failed to take relevant considerations - Whether decision perverse - Whether quashing of award justified
LABOUR LAW: Industrial Court - Award - Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash award of Industrial Court - Dismissal of high-ranking officer on grounds of poor performance - Proper test to be applied - Whether Industrial Court erred in applying general test to senior management employee - Whether Industrial Court failed to take relevant considerations - Whether decision perverse - Whether quashing of award justified
LABOUR LAW: Dismissal - Dismissal of high-ranking officer - Proper test to be applied - Whether company required to prove sufficient written notice to employee about his poor performance before dismissing him - Whether employee ought to be accorded sufficient opportunity to improve - Whether employee as senior management officer should know expectations of his employer and performance standards befitting his post - Whether Industrial Court erred in applying general test to senior management employee - Whether sufficient for company to establish upper management of company dissatisfied with employee - Whether company's dissatisfaction with employee bona fide
Azizah Nawawi J
- For the applicant - Sivabalah Nadarajah & Reena Enbasegaram; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
- For the respondent - Balan S Nair & Elaina Teng; M/s Seah Balan Ravi & Co
The power of the trial court to discharge an accused person at any stage of the trial if the charge is groundless, can only be done upon reasons to be recorded by the court. This implicitly means that evidence must first be led in order for the court to consider if there are sufficient reasons to so discharge the accused. It follows that the act of the criminal court in striking out a charge without hearing evidence from the prosecution is misconceived in law.
PP v. Datuk Wira SM Faisal SM Nasimuddin Kamal [2019] 8 CLJ 827 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against acquittal and discharge - Accused person charged for voluntarily causing hurt to wife - Offence under ss. 323 & 326 of Penal Code - Accused person applied to strike out charge before commencement of trial - Application not opposed by prosecution - Magistrate allowed application and struck out charge against accused person - Whether act of Magistrate in granting acquittal and discharge, before commencement of trial, misconceived in law - Whether act of Magistrate in striking out charges erroneous - Whether there was proper maximum evaluation of case - Whether accused person entitled to acquittal and discharge - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 173(g) & (f)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Summary trial by Magistrate - Accused person charged for voluntarily causing hurt to wife - Accused person applied to strike out charge before commencement of trial - Magistrate allowed application and struck out charge against accused person pursuant to court's inherent jurisdiction - Whether charge defective warranting invoking of court's inherent jurisdiction - Whether inherent jurisdiction properly exercised and could be exercised in accused's case - Whether matter could be summarily determined - Whether matter to be determined only upon proper evaluation of evidence - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Sections 323 and 326 - Accused charged for voluntarily causing hurt to wife - Magistrate allowed accused person's striking out application before commencement of trial pursuant to court's inherent jurisdiction - Appeal by prosecution against acquittal and discharge of accused person before commencement of trial
Collin Lawrence Sequerah J
- For the prosecution - Mohd Razdi Mohd Shah, Nur Aishah Ahmad Zalehuddin & Zilfinas Abbas; DPPs
- For the respondent - Akberdin Hj Abdul Kader & Ummi Kartini Abd Latiff; M/s Akberdin & Co
Dalam kes mengedar dadah berbahaya yang bersandar kepada perbuatan mengedar secara menjual, di mana transaksi penjualan berlaku antara lain, melalui perbualan-perbualan telefon bimbit di antara ejen provokatur dengan tertuduh, maka kegagalan mengemukakan telefon-telefon bimbit berkenaan boleh mencetuskan pemakaian andaian s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950, sekaligus memudaratkan kes pendakwaan. Kemudaratan masih boleh berlaku walaupun hakim bicara memutuskan, di akhir kes pendakwaan, bahawa ketiadaan telefon-telefon bimbit tersebut tidak menjejaskan kes pendakwaan, oleh kerana, diakhir kes pembelaan, berdasarkan keseluruhan keterangan, hakim bicara boleh berundur kebelakang dan membuat dapatan yang berbeza dari dapatannya yang terdahulu, berakibat pembelaan mungkin berjaya mematahkan elemen pemilikan dan pengetahuan dan membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan.
PP lwn. Murugan Elumalai & Satu Lagi [2019] 8 CLJ 840 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Pengedaran - Dakwaan - Prima facie - Sama ada terbukti - Kegagalan mengemukakan telefon-telefon bimbit yang digunakan oleh ejen perangkap dan tertuduh - Sama ada wujudnya perbincangan jual beli dadah sehingga membawa pada tangkapan atas tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada keterangan sengaja disembunyikan - Sama ada s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai terhadap pendakwaan - Sama ada kredibiliti ejen perangkap tergugat - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan atas kes pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya mematahkan anggapan milikan dan pengetahuan - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh harus dilepaskan dan dibebaskan
KETERANGAN: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Dakwaan - Prima facie - Sama ada terbukti - Kegagalan mengemukakan telefon-telefon bimbit yang digunakan oleh ejen perangkap dan tertuduh - Sama ada wujudnya perbincangan jual beli dadah hingga membawa pada tangkapan atas tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada keterangan sengaja disembunyikan - Sama ada s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai terhadap pendakwaan - Sama ada kredibiliti ejen perangkap tergugat - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan atas kes pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya mematahkan anggapan milikan dan pengetahuan - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh harus dilepaskan dan dibebaskan
Azmi Ariffin H
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Wan Shahida Wan Omar; TPR
- Bagi pihak OKT1 - T/n Sivananthan
- Bagi pihak OKT2 - T/n Geethan Ram
The Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara in making an amendment to a birth certificate cannot alter the original entry in the certificate. It is also not legally empowered to make amendments thereto where no amendment is sought for. Consequently, the Jabatan’s unsolicited decision to amend a birth certificate, a fortiori when the amendment made has changed the holder’s citizenship status, is not only illegal and irrational but unconstitutional and liable to be set aside.
Tan Lee Heng & Anor v. Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara & Ors [2019] 8 CLJ 865 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Application to quash decision of Director General of National Registration Department - Original birth certificate acknowledged child born to Malaysian father and Indonesian mother - National Registration Department amended original birth certificate and issued new one - Amendment of birth certificate altered child's citizenship status - Whether there was error of law in revoking original birth certificate and issuing amended birth certificate - Whether Director General of National Registration Department acted within legal power prescribed under law - Whether child Malaysian citizen by operation of law - Federal Constitution, art. 14(1)(b)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Application for - Application to quash decision of Director General of National Registration Department - Original birth certificate acknowledged child born to Malaysian father and Indonesian mother - National Registration Department amended original birth certificate and issued new one - Amendment of birth certificate altered child's citizenship status - Whether amendments made in accordance with requirements under s. 27(3) of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(2)
Nordin Hassan J
- For the applicants - Nik Asilah Aziz; M/s Zahir Jeya & Zainal
- For the respondents - Maisara Juhari; SFC
LNS Article(s)
RUKUN NEGARA AS THE PREAMBLE TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [Read excerpt]
by MOHAMED AZAM MOHAMED ADIL* [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxviBALANCING THE GAINS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WITH ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS IN NIGERIA [Read excerpt]
by Popoola, Olusoji David* Kehinde, Adeola Olufunke** [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxvii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 813 | Departure Levy Act 2019 | 1 August 2019 - Part I, Part II, Part IV, section 17, section 18, section 31, Part VII, Part VIII except for section 37, Part IX, Part X and Part XI to the Act; 1 September 2019 - Part III, Part V except for sections 17 and 18, Part VI except for section 31, and section 37 to the Act [PU(B) 373/2019] | - |
| ACT 812 | Finance Act 2018 | The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; The Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 31; The Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 63; The Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 69; The Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 71; The Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 83; The Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 91 | - |
| ACT 811 | Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (Dissolution) Act 2018 | 1 January 2019 [PU(B) 732/2018] | - |
| ACT 810 | Subang Golf Course Corporation Act 1968 (Revised 2018) | 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1968 as Act of Parliament No 26 of 1968; First Revision - 1993 (Act 509 wef 8 October 1993) | - |
| ACT 809 | Pool Betting Act 1967 (Revised 2018) | 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1967 as Act of Parliament No 72 of 1967; First Revision - 1989 (Act 384 wef 21 September 1989) | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1604 | Workers' Minimum Standards of Housing and Amenities (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 446 |
| ACT A1603 | Constitution (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 000 |
| ACT A1603 | Youth Societies and Youth Development (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 668 |
| ACT A1601 | Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 317 |
| ACT A1600 | Peaceful Assembly (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 736 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 234/2019 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 30) Order 2019 | 30 August 2019 | 31 August 2019 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 233/2019 | Service Tax (Compounding of Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 | 30 August 2019 | 1 September 2019 | PU(A) 218/2018 |
| PU(A) 232/2019 | Service Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2019 | 30 August 2019 | 1 September 2019 | PU(A) 214/2018 |
| PU(A) 231/2019 | Service Tax (Imposition of Tax for Taxable Service In Respect of Designated Areas and Special Areas) (Amendment) Order 2019 | 30 August 2019 | 1 September 2019 | PU(A) 212/2018 |
| PU(A) 230/2019 | Sales Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2018 - Corrigendum | 30 August 2019 | PU(A) 399/2018 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 426/2019 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 30 August 2019 | 31 August 2019 | ACT A1597 |
| PU(B) 425/2019 | Revocation of Reservation of Land for Public Purpose | 30 August 2019 | 31 August 2019 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 424/2019 | Notice to Third Parties | 30 August 2019 | 31 August 2019 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 423/2019 | Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 | 30 August 2019 | 1 September 2019 to 30 September 2019 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 422/2019 | Appointment Under Section 3 | 29 August 2019 | Specified in column (3) of the Schedule | ACT 341 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 218/2018 | Service Tax (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 2018 | PU(A) 233/2019 | 1 September 2019 | Regulations 4 and 5; First and Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 214/2018 | Service Tax Regulations 2018 | PU(A) 232/2019 | 1 September 2019 | Regulations 2, 8, 10, 14, 16; Part IIIA; First and Third Schedules |
| PU(A) 212/2018 | Service Tax (Imposition of Tax For Taxable Service in Respect of Designated Areas and Special Areas) Order 2018 | PU(A) 231/2019 | 1 September 2019 | Paragraph 2A and Schedule |
| PU(A) 103/2017 | Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 2017 | PU(A) 228/2019 | 1 November 2019 | Second and Fourth Schedule |
| ACT 807 | Service Tax Act 2018 | ACT A1597 | 1 September 2019 [PU(B) 426/2019] - para. 3(b), s. 4, 5 and 6, paras. 16(a), (b) and (c), paras. 21(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), s. 22, 23, 24 and 27, para. 28(a), s. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 49, and para. 50(a); 1 October 2019 [PU(B) 426/2019] - s. 2, paras. 3(c), (e) and (f), s. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, para. 16(d), s. 17, 18, 19 and 20, para. 21(f), s. 25 and 26, para. 28(b), s. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48, para. 50(b), (c) and (d), s. 51 and 52; 1 January 2020 [PU(B) 426/2019] - section 37. | Sections 1A, 2, 9 - 26, 26A, 27, 27A, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 - 36, 39, 40, 40A, 46A, 51A, Part IXA, Sections 65, 68, 69A, 71, 75, 76, 81 - 84, 86, 86A and 91 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 248/2014 | Customs Duties (Goods Under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Between Asean and China) (Asean Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature) Order 2014 | PU(A) 212/2019 | 1 August 2019 |
| PU(B) 11/2016 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Federal Lands Commissioner | PU(B) 332/2019 | 10 July 2019 |
| PU(A) 128/1999 | Income Tax (Allowance For Increased Exports) Rules 1999 | PU(A) 162/2019 | Year of assessment 2016 |
| PU(A) 158/2005 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 17) Order 2005 | PU(A) 161/2019 | Year of assessment 2016 |
| PU(A) 125/2018 | Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2018 | PU(A) 132/2019 | On the date of appointment of the persons named in the first column of the Schedule |