|
Issue #44/2021
04 November 2021
|
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
|
RESTORAN WONG SOLO (SHAH ALAM) SDN BHD & ORS v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA [2021] 9 CLJ 660
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: BA-12GS-01-09-2017]
23 JULY 2021
A restaurant providing or selling food and drinks, with an annual sales turnover of more than RM3 million, is a taxable person, and as such, is obliged to apply for a licence and be licensed under the Service Tax Act 1975 ('STA 1975') in order to carry on its business of providing taxable services. The fact that the restaurant did not apply for a licence under s. 8 of the STA 1975 and carried out in providing the 'taxable service' at its restaurant meant that it was guilty of an offence against the STA 1975 (s. 29 of the Act); it did not mean that it is a non-taxable person. Further, in order for the Government to bring a civil suit for the recovery of the service charge due and payable, the restaurant did not have to be convicted under s. 29 of the STA 1975, as to do so would require courts to give the words in ss. 15, 29 and 40A of the STA 1975 strained and unnatural meanings.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Appeal against - Recovery of unpaid service tax - Claim for - Restaurant carrying on business of food and drinks - Total annual sales turnover for 12 months in sum of more than RM3 million - Whether restaurant 'taxable person' providing 'taxable service' - Whether restaurant person licensed under Service Tax Act 1975 ('STA 1975') - Whether liable to pay service tax - Whether Government could recover service tax due and payable from taxable person only after person has been convicted of offence under STA 1975 - Whether Sessions Court correct in allowing Government's application for summary judgment under O. 14 of Rules of Court 2012 for claim against restaurant - Service Tax Act 1975, ss. 3, 8, 10(2), 14, 15(1), 29 & 40A
REVENUE LAW: Service tax - Recovery - Claim for recovery of unpaid service tax - Restaurant carrying on business of food and drinks - Total annual sales turnover for 12 months in sum of more than RM3 million - Whether restaurant 'taxable person' providing 'taxable service' - Whether restaurant a person licensed under Service Tax Act 1975 ('STA 1975') - Whether liable to pay service tax - Whether Government could recover service tax due and payable from taxable person only after person has been convicted of offence under STA 1975 - Service Tax Act 1975, ss. 3, 8, 10(2), 14, 15(1), 29 & 40A
“It is clear that Parliament's intention in enacting section 99(1) was to leave it entirely to the Disciplinary Board to deal with all matters concerning the conduct of advocates and solicitors or pupils, hence the direction in imperative terms that the complaint "shall" in the first place be made or referred to the Disciplinary Board. There is nothing in the LPA that gives the Malaysian Bar the right to place before the floor of the AGM any complaint concerning the conduct of an advocate and solicitor by way of a motion under section 64(6).”
“To allow any member of the Malaysian Bar to lodge a section 99(1) complaint by way of motion under section 64(6) is to render section 99(1) completely otiose and denuded of all meaning, for then any complaint concerning the conduct of an advocate and solicitor could just be made to the Malaysian Bar by way of a motion under section 64(6) and to be summarily resolved on the floor of the House without first referring it to the Disciplinary Board as required by section 99(1). That will be to defeat the object behind section 99(1) of the LPA.”
– per Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ in Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah v. Tommy Thomas & Ors [2021] 1 LNS 1488; [2021] CLJ JT (13)
Legal Network Series
|
SA'AMRAN ATAN lwn. FAZLINA MIHAD & SATU LAGI Mahkamah wajar memasukkan penghakiman interlokutori terhadap defendan berkenaan isu liabiliti apabila pembelaan defendan telah dibatalkan dan meneruskan perbicaraan kes bagi menentukan isu kuantum ganti rugi yang dituntut sahaja. Perbicaraan kes tanpa pembelaan defendan untuk menentukan isu liabiliti adalah tidak adil dan sangat memprejudiskan pihak yang menuntut terutamanya apabila versi kes pihak yang menuntut telah diakui. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kemalangan - Liabiliti - Kecuaian - Defendan tidak memfailkan pembelaan - Ketiadaan versi liabiliti defendan untuk menyangkal tuntutan plaintif - Sama ada pengataan plaintif mengenai kemalangan tidak dipertikaikan dan patut diterima - Sama ada defendan cuai sepenuhnya dalam kemalangan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Perbicaraan - Kaedah perbicaraan - Perbicaraan tanpa pliding - Pembelaan dibatalkan - Ketiadaan versi pembelaan berkenaan isu liabiliti - Sama ada Mahkamah boleh meneruskan perbicaraan kes tanpa pembelaan - Sama ada perbicaraan wajar diteruskan untuk menentukan isu liabiliti atau kuantum - Sama ada versi pihak yang menuntut telah diterima - Sama ada perbicaraan untuk menentukan liabiliti telah memprejudiskan pihak yang menuntut - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 18 k. 22 GANTI RUGI: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap awad - Hakim bicara memberikan ganti rugi secara menyeluruh untuk kecederaan yang dialami pada bahagian anggota yang sama - Sama ada ganti rugi yang berasingan wajar diberikan
|
|
|
BERKENAAN: WAN MUHD SHUKRI WAN AFFANDI; EX-PARTE: CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION MALAYSIA BERHAD Suatu afidavit yang difailkan oleh penghutang penghakiman yang gagal menyatakan bahawa beliau mempunyai tuntutan balas, penolakan atau tuntutan bersilang tidak boleh diterima untuk membantah notis kebankrapan. Apabila afidavit sedemikian tidak diterima, maka suatu perbuatan kebankrapan telah dilakukan oleh penghutang penghakiman yang membolehkan pemiutang penghakiman untuk memfailkan petisyen pemiutang. KEBANKRAPAN: Pengetepian - Permohonan untuk - Pengetepian petisyen pemiutang - Perbuatan kebankrapan - Penghutang penghakiman gagal menyatakan kewujudan tuntutan balas, penolakan atau tuntutan bersilang di dalam afidavit untuk membantah notis kebankrapan - Sama ada afidavit penghutang penghakiman boleh diterima untuk membantah notis kebankrapan - Sama ada perbuatan kebankrapan telah dilakukan oleh penghutang penghakiman - Sama ada pemiutang penghakiman boleh memfailkan petisyen pemiutang - Sama ada keputusan terhadap bantahan mengenai notis kebankrapan perlu diberikan dahulu sebelum petisyen pemiutang boleh difailkan KEBANKRAPAN: Notis - Penghakiman muktamad - Notis kebankrapan berasaskan penghakiman ingkar - Rayuan terhadap permohonan untuk mengenepikan penghakiman ingkar ditolak oleh Mahkamah - Ketiadaan sebarang perintah penggantungan pelaksanaan - Sama ada penghakiman ingkar yang diperolehi oleh pemiutang penghakiman merupakan penghakiman muktamad - Sama ada penghakiman ingkar boleh digunakan sebagai asas untuk memulakan tindakan kebankrapan
|
|
|
KUMARAGURU KUPUSAMY & SATU LAGI lwn. PP Kesalahan rompakan yang mendatangkan kecederaan terhadap mangsa merupakan kesalahan yang berat dan hukuman berbentuk pengajaran perlu dizahirkan oleh Mahkamah. Apabila mangsa mengalami kecederaan akibat perbuatan tertuduh, maka hukuman sebatan rotan harus dikenakan. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Hukuman penjara 13 tahun dan 6 sebatan rotan bagi kesalahan bawah s. 394 Kanun Keseksaan - Rompakan dilakukan menggunakan senjata seperti batang besi dan cangkul - Mangsa mengalami kecederaan - Sama ada tertuduh telah melakukan kesalahan yang berat - Sama ada hukuman berbentuk pengajaran perlu dizahirkan - Sama ada kesusahan peribadi atau keluarga tertuduh merupakan faktor mitigasi yang perlu diambil kira dalam prinsip penghukuman - Sama ada hukuman sebatan wajar dikenakan
|
|
|
FAISAL @ IBRAHIM HAJI SIRAJ & ANOR v. AHMAD ZAKI SENDIRIAN BERHAD (81250-W) & ORS The Court can exercise discretion on its own motion pursuant to O. 2 r. 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 to give necessary orders to effect any non-compliance of its pre-trial case management directions by relevant parties although an unless order was not made earlier. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Case management - Pre-trial case management - Effect of non-compliance of court's directions - Failure to file statement of agreed facts and issues to be tried - Parties failed to notify court earlier on the need for more time to comply with court's directions - Absence of any unless order - Whether court could exercise discretion on its motion to strike out a claim when parties failed to comply with pre-trial case management directions - Whether court could only exercise discretion under O. 2 r. 3 of Rules of Court 2012 if it had made an unless order
|
|
|
JASBINDER JIT KAUR LAHOR SINGH v. NEELAMBIKAI M PALAISAMY & ORS 1. Availability of an acknowledgment of receipt of payment is the best evidence to prove the disbursement of money in a friendly loan transaction. However, mere unavailability of such acknowledgement of receipt is not grounds to reject the existence of disbursement of money in a loan transaction. 2. The Court may, in appropriate cases, grant relief that is not prayed for, either jointly or in the alternative to other remedies provided that it is not inconsistent with the relief that is expressly prayed for. CONTRACT: Loan - Friendly loan - Existence of - Signatures appearing on friendly loan agreement not disputed by borrower - Unavailability of acknowledgement of receipt of loan disbursement - Borrower disputed actual sum of loan disbursed - Borrower did not dispute loan amount during earlier court proceedings - Whether there were contemporaneous documents to support truth of friendly loan transaction between parties - Whether loan has been disbursed and received by borrower TORT: Conspiracy - Conspiracy to defraud - Proof of - Whether conspiracy can be proven without meeting of minds between defendants - Whether there were conspiracy between defendants to defraud plaintiff CIVIL PROCEDURE: Reliefs - Power of Court - Granting or reliefs not prayed for - Whether Court could grant relief that was not prayed for by parties
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 9 (Part 4)
Apabila seorang tertuduh dituduh dengan kesalahan pengedaran dadah bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB'), mahkamah tidak sepatutnya membuat keputusan dalam bentuk alternatif apabila memutuskan tertuduh gagal menimbulkan keraguan atas kes pihak pendakwaan dan pada masa yang sama mengguna pakai peruntukan anggapan pengedaran dadah berbahaya di perenggan kecil 37(da)(vi) ADB. Ini adalah satu salah arahan yang serius yang menjurus pada keraguan terhadap standard pembuktian kes dan keraguan berhubung pengendalian kes, jika memudaratkan kes pendakwaan, manfaat perlu diberi kepada pihak pembelaan.
Lim Tan Yi lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2021] 9 CLJ 523 [CA]
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Pengedaran - Dakwaan - Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi ('HMT') gagal menyatakan secara spesifik peruntukan yang disandarkan semasa memanggil tertuduh membela diri - Sama ada HMT tersalah arah apabila membuat keputusan berbentuk alternatif di akhir kes pendakwaan - Sama ada tertuduh perlu mengemukakan pembelaan pada tahap keraguan munasabah sahaja atau perlu mematahkan anggapan undang-undang atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Kegagalan mengambil kira kemungkinan orang lain ada akses terhadap dadah - Keraguan isu pengendalian barang kes - Sama ada menyebabkan prejudis dan ketidakadilan pada tertuduh - Sama ada sabitan atas tertuduh selamat
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 6 - Milikan - Dakwaan milikan dadah berbahaya jenis kanabis - Elemen-elemen kesalahan - Sama ada terbukti - Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi tersalah arah - Sama ada wujud kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh - Sama ada sabitan atas tertuduh selamat
LAU BEE LAN HMR
SUPANG LIAN HMR
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu - Kee Wei Lon, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Low Wei Loke & Kenny Wong Kit Lee; T/n Kenny & Low
- Bagi pihak responden - Zaki Asyraf Zubir; TPR
To accede to the request of a bank, by allowing a charge to remain in place over a property, when the transfer is expunged from the records, would create an off and incongruous situation of there being no registered proprietor/chargor but there being a charge on title. A reliance on ss. 215 and 216 of the National Land Code would be misconceived since those provisions apply to a transfer of land and for the passing of all existing interests and restrictions then existing on the land.
Malayan Banking Bhd v. Sparrows & Arrows Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 9 CLJ 554 [CA]
EVIDENCE: Fresh evidence - Application for - Leave to admit further evidence - Whether further/fresh evidence to be adduced would have important influence on outcome of case - Whether application should be allowed - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 69
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Estoppel - Assignor entered into sale and purchase agreement without assignee's consent - Parties and documentary evidence appeared/adduced before court - No challenge as to sale by way of counterclaim - Whether cause of action arose - Whether principle of res judicata applied in wider sense under cause of action estoppel
LAND LAW: Interest in property - Registered interest - Transfer of property - Whether registered interest and transfer valid - Whether transfer defeasible - Whether registration of transfer defeated all prior unregistered interests - Whether vitiating circumstances in s. 340(2)(a), (b) or (c) of National Land Code proved to defeat registered interest - Whether bank had legal interests and rights over property as assignee - Whether there was pre-planned and intent to commit fraud against bank
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
LAU BEE LAN JCA
- For the appellant - Ng Sai Yeang, Wong Chee Chien & Yenne Chow; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
- For the 1st respondent - Cheang Lek Choy; M/s Lek Choy & Co
- For the 2nd respondent - Rajashree Suppiah & Kuan Kai Tat; M/s Mei Fun & Rajashree
- for the 3rd respondent - Yeoh Cho Kheong & Lee Mei Xian; M/s Ranjit Singh & Yeoh
- For the 4th respondent - Lim Kian Leong & Tobias Lim; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
In view of the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause agreed to by the parties, by which the parties had irrevocably and unconditionally submitted to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts, the proceedings, premised on the ground that Singapore courts was the proper forum to hear the matter, ought not to be challenged.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v. United Securities Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Ors [2021] 9 CLJ 593 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Forum conveniens - Proper forum for legal action - Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in agreement - Whether irrevocable waiver that venue selected not convenient forum - Whether omission of option to sue elsewhere intentional - Whether parties obligated to refer to agreed jurisdiction - Whether submission to jurisdiction selected should not be challenged - Whether selected jurisdiction best positioned to hear dispute
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
SEE MEE CHUN JCA
- For the appellant & 2nd respondent - Yoong Sin Min, Poh Choo Hoe & Choy Kay Chun; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
- For the 1st respondent - P Gananathan & Tan Li Chie; M/s Gananathan Loh
- For the 3rd, 4th & 5th respondents - Hoi Jack S'ng & Chew Mei Yng; M/s Lee Hishammudin Allen & Glendhill
- For the 6th respondent - Ng Sai Yeang & Teoh Chye Yi; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
- For the 7th respondent - K Shanti Moganasundram & Liew Seong Yee; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
Permohonan perintah certiorari membatalkan award Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna Malaysia dibenarkan atas kekhilafan undang-undang material pada penilaian oleh Tribunal yang hanya mempertimbangkan peruntukan-peruntukan bawah Akta Perlindungan Pengguna 1999 dan fakta kes tanpa mengambil kira terma-terma perjanjian antara pihak-pihak.
Agensi Pekerjaan Kenangan Eksklusif (M) Sdn Bhd lwn. Chin Kok Leong & Satu Lagi [2021] 9 CLJ 607 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiorari - Permohonan membatalkan award Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna Malaysia ('Tribunal') - Sama ada terdapat kekhilafan undang-undang dalam penilaian Tribunal - Sama ada penilaian Tribunal sekadar berlandaskan peruntukan-peruntukan Akta Perlindungan Pengguna 1999 ('APP') - Sama ada mengambil kira terma-terma kontrak yang mengikat pihak-pihak - Sama ada gerenti tersirat bawah s. 53 APP terpakai - Sama ada faktor-faktor relevan lain dipertimbangkan - Akta Perlindungan Pengguna 1999, ss. 53, 54(1)(a), (b), 55 & 57
NOORIN BADARUDDIN H
- Bagi pihak perayu - Lum Man Chan; T/n Halim Hong & Quek
- Bagi pihak responden - Jasmin Raj; T/n K Nadarajah & Partners
A consent judgment, having been agreed by the parties and drawn up in a regular manner, ought to be given its full effect. When a party seeks to amend it in a manner inconsistent with the initial consensus achieved between the parties, it is not considered an appropriate case for the exercise of judicial intervention to amend or vary it. Extension of time for compliance with the consent judgment would cause prejudice as it would further delay the affected party from exercising its rights. When a party does not come to court with clean hands and fails to perform its obligations by the stipulated deadlines, it has failed to satisfy the legal requirements for relief from forfeiture and an equitable relief ought not to be granted.
Pilecon Engineering Bhd & Ors v. Malaysian Trustees Bhd & Ors [2021] 9 CLJ 627 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Consent judgment - Validity - Whether consent judgment could be amended or varied - Whether court functus officio - Whether extension of time could be granted to comply with consent judgment - Whether legal requirements for relief from forfeiture satisfied - Whether originating summons ought to be dismissed
ADLIN ABDUL MAJID JC
- For the plaintiffs - Ivanpal Singh Grewal & James Au; M/s AJ Ariffin Yeo & Harpal
- For the defendants - Marianne Loh Suet May & Peter Neik Xiang Sheng; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
To answer the question of whether the circumstantial evidence of a case has led to the irresistible conclusion that it was indeed the accused who had committed the crime, the court has to carefully consider all the evidence on a maximum evaluation. If it is found that the circumstantial evidence could not be glued together to form a complete narrative, the prosecution is said to have failed a prima facie case.
PP v. Mughilesvaran Jaya Chandran [2021] 9 CLJ 641 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Offence - Murder - Ingredients - Whether proven - Whether victim/deceased dead - Whether death result of injuries caused or result of act of accused - Whether accused caused injuries with intention of causing death or bodily injuries which accused knew to be likely to cause death - Whether accused caused injuries with intention of causing bodily injuries and such bodily injuries were sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause death - Whether charge substantiated - Penal Code, s. 302
SHAHNAZ SULAIMAN JC
- For the prosecution - Nor Azizah Muhammad; DPP
- For the accused - Shaik Saleem BSM Daud; M/s Shaik Adam & Co
A restaurant providing or selling food and drinks, with an annual sales turnover of more than RM3 million, is a taxable person, and as such, is obliged to apply for a licence and be licensed under the Service Tax Act 1975 ('STA 1975') in order to carry on its business of providing taxable services. The fact that the restaurant did not apply for a licence under s. 8 of the STA 1975 and carried out in providing the 'taxable service' at its restaurant meant that it was guilty of an offence against the STA 1975 (s. 29 of the Act); it did not mean that it is a non-taxable person. Further, in order for the Government to bring a civil suit for the recovery of the service charge due and payable, the restaurant did not have to be convicted under s. 29 of the STA 1975, as to do so would require courts to give the words in ss. 15, 29 and 40A of the STA 1975 strained and unnatural meanings.
Restoran Wong Solo (Shah Alam) Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Kerajaan Malaysia [2021] 9 CLJ 660 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Appeal against - Recovery of unpaid service tax - Claim for - Restaurant carrying on business of food and drinks - Total annual sales turnover for 12 months in sum of more than RM3 million - Whether restaurant 'taxable person' providing 'taxable service' - Whether restaurant person licensed under Service Tax Act 1975 ('STA 1975') - Whether liable to pay service tax - Whether Government could recover service tax due and payable from taxable person only after person has been convicted of offence under STA 1975 - Whether Sessions Court correct in allowing Government's application for summary judgment under O. 14 of Rules of Court 2012 for claim against restaurant - Service Tax Act 1975, ss. 3, 8, 10(2), 14, 15(1), 29 & 40A
REVENUE LAW: Service tax - Recovery - Claim for recovery of unpaid service tax - Restaurant carrying on business of food and drinks - Total annual sales turnover for 12 months in sum of more than RM3 million - Whether restaurant 'taxable person' providing 'taxable service' - Whether restaurant a person licensed under Service Tax Act 1975 ('STA 1975') - Whether liable to pay service tax - Whether Government could recover service tax due and payable from taxable person only after person has been convicted of offence under STA 1975 - Service Tax Act 1975, ss. 3, 8, 10(2), 14, 15(1), 29 & 40A
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J
- For the appellants - Sivabalan & Goh Wan Ping; M/s Mastura Partnership
- For the respondent - Khairul Nizam Abu Bakar, SFC
To prove a previous conviction under any law, it is within the power and competency of the Registrar of Criminals for the Federation or any officer appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pursuant to s. 3 of the Registration of Criminals and Undesirable Persons Act 1969. In the absence of any evidence of such appointment, the Assistant Registrar of the Kangar Court had no locus, qualification and competency to confirm, tender and prove the accused's previous convictions and as a result, the conviction and sentence were wrong and not in accordance with the law
Zul Azuandi Aziz v. PP [2021] 9 CLJ 681 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence - Appeal against - Conviction under s. 15(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Accused sentenced to six years imprisonment, two strokes of whipping and two years police supervision - Whether prosecution failed to prove accused had previous convictions - Whether to prove one's previous convictions within power and competency of Registrar of Criminals for the Federation or any officer appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pursuant to s. 3 of Registration of Criminals and Undesirable Persons Act 1969 - Whether accused liable to be convicted and punished for offence under s. 15(1)(a) punishable under s. 39C(1) - Whether sentence ought to be set aside - Whether substituted with lesser punishment
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 15(1)(a) - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against sentence - Accused sentenced to six years imprisonment, two strokes of whipping and two years police supervision - Whether prosecution failed to prove accused had previous convictions - Whether to prove one's previous convictions within power and competency of Registrar of Criminals for the Federation or any officer appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pursuant to s. 3 of Registration of Criminals and Undesirable Persons Act 1969 - Whether accused liable to be convicted and punished for offence under s. 15(1)(a) punishable under s. 39C(1) - Whether sentence ought to be set aside - Whether substituted with lesser punishment
ARIK SANUSI YEOP JOHARI JC
- For the appellant - Devandran Subramaniam; M/s Devandran & Co
- For the respondent - Mohd Izham Ali; DPP
LNS Article(s)
ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: THE ASEAN TRADE IN SERVICES AGREEMENT [Read excerpt]
by Jeremiah Rais* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxxiWHAT MAKETH THE EXPERT?* [Read excerpt]
by SM Shanmugam and Shona Anne Thomas** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxxiiBURDEN OF PROOF [Read excerpt]
by T. Vijayandran [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxxiii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 831 | Finance Act 2020 | The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 | - |
| ACT 830 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020 | 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 | - |
| ACT 829 | Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 | Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) | - |
| ACT 828 | National Land Code (Revised 2020) | 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 | - |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1634 | Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2021 | 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 174/2021] | ACT 502 |
| ACT A1633 | Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2021 | 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 148/2021] - s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; and s 10 (only for new subsection 20C(3) of the new part VA of the Tourism Tax Act 2017 [Act 791]); 1 July 2021 [PU(B) 148/2021] - s 10 (except for the provision of new subsection 20C(3) of the new part VA of the principal Act) and 21 | ACT 791 |
| ACT A1632 | Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 716/2020] | ACT 807 |
| ACT A1631 | Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 715/2020] | ACT 806 |
| ACT A1630 | Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 719/2020] | ACT 438 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 411/2021 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 6) Order 2021 | 29 October 2021 | 1 November 2021 to 7 November 2021 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 410/2021 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 8) Order 2021 | 29 October 2021 | 1 November 2021 to 7 November 2021 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 409/2021 | Control of Supplies (Controlled Articles) (No. 5) Order 2021 | 29 October 2021 | 1 November 2021 | ACT 122 |
| PU(A) 408/2021 | Credit Reporting Agencies (Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 | 27 October 2021 | 1 November 2021 | PU(A) 142/2014 |
| PU(A) 407/2021 | Sales Tax (Imposition of Sales Tax in Respect of Designated Area) (Amendment) Order 2021 | 21 October 2021 | 25 October 2021 | PU(A) 206/2018 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 541/2021 | Temporary Exercise of Ministerial Functions | 2 November 2021 | 3 November 2021 | ACT 388 |
| PU(B) 540/2021 | Medical Act 1971 - Corrigendum | 1 November 2021 | ACT 50 | |
| PU(B) 539/2021 | Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Sarawak | 1 November 2021 | 2 November 2021 | PU(A) 293/2002 |
| PU(B) 538/2021 | Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Sabah | 1 November 2021 | 2 November 2021 | PU(A) 293/2002 |
| PU(B) 537/2021 | Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Federal Territory of Labuan | 1 November 2021 | 2 November 2021 | PU(A) 293/2002 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 77/1991 | Control of Supplies (Exemption) Order 1991 | PU(A) 399/2021 | 15 October 2021 | Paragraph 5 and Third Schedule |
| PU(A) 103/1974 | Control of Supplies Regulations 1974 | PU(A) 398/2021 | 15 October 2021 | Regulations 13 and 18; Schedule |
| AKTA 50 | Akta Perubatan 1971 | PU(B) 540/2021 | Jadual Kedua | |
| ACT 50 | Medical Act 1971 | PU(B) 540/2021 | Second Schedule | |
| PU(A) 86/2011 | Control of Supplies (Prohibition on Export) Regulations 2011 | PU(A) 397/2021 | 15 October 2021 | Second Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(B) 485/2021 | Notis Di Bawah Seksyen 70 | PU(B) 516/2021 | 27 Oktober 2021 |
| PU(B) 485/2021 | Notice Under Section 70 | PU(B) 516/2021 | 27 October 2021 |
| PU(A) 343/2021 | Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan (No. 2) 2021 | PU(A) 383/2021 | Lihat perenggan 1(2) |
| PU(A) 343/2021 | Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 2) Order 2021 | PU(A) 383/2021 | See paragraph 1(2) of this Order |
| PU(B) 101/2015 | Notification of Scale of Rates 2015 | PU(B) 457/2021 | 9 September 2021 |