|
Issue #5/2022
03 February 2022
|
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
|
MAQSOOD AHMAD & ORS v. KETUA PEGAWAI PENGUATKUASA AGAMA & ORS [2022] 2 CLJ 259
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: 25-56-10-2015]
25 OCTOBER 2021
Abstract – (i) Members of the Ahmadiyya sect are generally not Muslims and are not to be subjected to the dictates of Islamic law or statute, or any Syariah investigation or prosecution. However, to properly determine their constitutional and legal status, a differentiation must be made between those who were adherents of the faith by origin, and those who were professing the religion of Islam before embracing the doctrinal beliefs of the Ahmadiyya sect. The Civil Court is seized with jurisdiction to deal with those in the first category but not in the second; for the latter category, the right to determine belongs exclusively to the Syariah Court. (ii) The Ahmadiyya worshippers in this judicial review application are made up of those who were born into Ahmadiyya families and were Ahmadiyya adherents by origin, and Muslims who had subsequently come to adopt the Ahmadiyya faith. Clearly, the applicants in the second category who are Malaysians fall squarely within the ‘renunciation’ cases and would therefore come within the jurisdiction of the Islamic Authorities respondents, and be subject to the two fatwas herein, until and unless they obtain an order from the Syariah Court that they are followers of the Ahmadiyya sect.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Judicial review against decision of public authority – Jurisdiction – Officers of Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (‘JAIS’) raided premises used by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at religious group to perform prayers – Applicants compelled to appear before Syariah Court on pain of monetary penalty – Whether applicants Ahmadiyya faith by origin or subsequent adherents – Whether applicants Muslims under law - Whether applicants fell within jurisdiction of JAIS – Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, s. 97
“I am unable to agree with the appellant that s. 3(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) only excludes a marriage under the Islamic law and not a Muslim in toto. Given the clear wordings of s. 3(3) of the LRA and the plain meaning of word "or", I find that the Court of Appeal did not err in its interpretation of s. 3(3) of the LRA that the LRA is not applicable to the (Muslim) respondent. The respondent's application for the judicial separation petition to be struck out against her was thus correctly allowed.”
“Even if the purposive approach is to be adopted, the outcome will be the same as the LRA does not merely govern monogamous marriages registered under the LRA, but more than that, it is a personal law for non-Muslims. Since Muslims have a different set of personal laws, the LRA or any part of it is not applicable to a Muslim, regardless of the purpose for citing or adding in a Muslim to the divorce petition or the judicial separation petition. If one were to read s. 3(3) only in respect of marriage and divorce without regard to art. 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution read with art. 8(5)(a) of the same, the clear demarcation between the personal laws of Muslims and non-Muslims in this country will be in a state of disarray.” – Per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ (majority) in AJS v. JMH & Another Appeal [2022] 1 CLJ 331
Legal Network Series
|
KLIAA-KLIAC CONSORTIUM & ORS v. LATIPAH ABU T/A LA ARCHITECT An adjudicator has jurisdiction to decide disputes and differences between parties under an agreement finalised after the operational date of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA'), which replaced certain terms of the letter of offer issued prior to the operational date of CIPAA. CONSTRUCTION LAW: : Adjudication - Setting aside - Adjudication decision - Adjudicator allowed claim for architect's fee - Jurisdictional challenge - Letter of offer issued before operational date of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') and agreement entered after operational date of CIPAA - Parties contemplated further negotiations and agreement after issuance of letter of offer - Agreement replaced certain terms of letter of offer - Whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide on disputes and differences between parties under contract - Whether jurisdiction of adjudicator dependent on date contract was made
|
|
|
NAGARAJAN RAJOO v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS The disclosure of certain parts of the minutes of the advisory board hearing, which are only intended to show contentions raised by the detainee before the advisory board, will not in any manner compromise the national interest. The failure to adduce the minutes of the advisory board hearing amounts to wilful withholding of material evidence. PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Habeas corpus - Validity of extension of detention order - Whether Minister was granted discretion to extend detention order - Whether Minister had complied with requirement under s. 11(4) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 1985') - Whether there was breach of ss. 11 and 11A of Act 1985 PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Habeas corpus - Denial of right to appear before advisory board during review proceedings prior to issuance of extended detention order - Respondent failed to adduce minutes of advisory board hearing - Respondent failed to explain gap on dates of submission and receipt of Borang 1 - Whether there was breach of s. 9(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and rr. 3(1), 3(4) and 4(3) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1987 - Whether there was infringement of Art. 151(1) of Federal Constitution - Whether there was wilful withholding of material evidence by respondent - Whether detention was lawful CIVIL PROCEDURE: Affidavits - Expunging of - Supplemental affidavit - Affidavit filed after exhaustion date and without leave of Court - Whether affidavit filed out of time was irregular - Whether affidavit ought to be expunged in its entirety
|
|
|
JANET YAM AH GOH v. PINTAR ASIAMAS SDN BHD & ORS; ANG AH HENG & ANOR (INTERVENER) The effect of a court judgment is retrospective. As such, a proposed intervener can be added as a party in the winding up proceedings retrospectively after the respondent company has been wound up. COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Procedure - Leave to intervene proceeding - Application filed after respondent company was wound up - Whether proposed intervener has legitimate interests in winding up proceedings - Whether proposed intervener should be added as a party to winding up proceedings retrospectively - Whether proposed intervener should be allowed abridgment of time to file application for leave to intervene winding up proceeding
|
|
|
PP lwn. NAARESH THIRUNUKARASOO & SATU LAGI Pertuduhan bawah s. 394 Kanun Keseksaan memerlukan beban pembuktian yang lebih sukar di mana pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan suatu kes prima facie yang menunjukkan tertuduh telah dengan sengaja melakukan kecederaan terhadap mangsa semasa kejadian merompak. Mangsa yang mengalami kecederaan akibat pergelutan dengan tertuduh tidak terjumlah kepada suatu perbuatan yang menunjukkan bahawa tertuduh telah dengan sengaja melakukan kecederaan tersebut. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Pelepasan dan pembebasan - Pelepasan dan pembebasan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela - Kesalahan bawah s. 394 Kanun Keseksaan - Saksi gagal membuktikan tertuduh telah dengan sengaja menyebabkan kecederaan terhadap mangsa - Mangsa terjatuh ketika bergelut dengan peragut - Sama ada dapatan hakim bicara yang melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh wajar diganggu UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 394 - Kesalahan dengan sengaja menyebabkan kecederaan semasa merompak - Mangsa terjatuh semasa bergelut dengan peragut - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh telah melakukan rompakan - Sama ada kecederaan yang dialami mangsa adalah akibat terjatuh - Sama ada saksi telah membuktikan bahawa kecederaan yang dialami mangsa dilakukan dengan sengaja oleh tertuduh - Sama ada pertuduhan bawah s. 394 Kanun Keseksaan memerlukan beban pembuktian yang lebih sukar
|
|
|
KRISHNAN KANDASAMY lwn. PP & RAYUAN YANG LAIN Penekanan tidak wajar diberikan terhadap pembelaan alibi sekiranya syarat nyata bawah s. 402A(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah gagal dipatuhi dan pengecaman positif telah dibuat oleh saksi pendakwaan bahawa tertuduh merupakan orang yang menyebabkan kematian si mati. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Niat bersama - Si mati mengalami kecederaan teruk di tubuh akibat ditetak dengan parang dan besi oleh tertuduh-tertuduh - Pihak pendakwaan bersandar kepada keterangan seorang saksi mata - Sama ada elemen-elemen bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan telah dibuktikan - Sama ada kecederaan terhadap si mati dilakukan berdasarkan niat bersama tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mengetahui kecederaan yang dilakukan terhadap si mati dalam keadaan biasa boleh menyebabkan kematian - Sama ada kredibiliti saksi tergugat PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Pertuduhan bunuh - Tertuduh nafi telah mencederakan simati - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah satu pemikiran terkemudian dan rekaan semata-mata PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Alibi - Pertuduhan bunuh - Notis alibi yang diberikan tidak lengkap - Saksi alibi adalah saksi berkepentingan - Pengecaman positif telah dibuat terhadap tertuduh sebagai orang yang menyebabkan kematian si mati - Sama ada keterangan saksi alibi meragukan - Sama ada syarat nyata bawah s. 402A(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah telah dipatuhi - Sama ada pembelaan alibi wajar diberi penekanan
|
CLJ 2022 Volume 2 (Part 1)
A successful bidder at a public auction conducted under the National Land Code, having duly registered the land in his name, obtains an indefeasible title thereto. Such of his right prevails over any other unregistered interests therein, including the purported right of the State Authority over such land based on a promise made by the previous owner to surrender the same to the State; it follows that any subsequent occupation of the land and any encumbrance emplaced thereon without the registered proprietor's consent constitutes a trespass in law.
Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v. Jabatan Pengairan Dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2022] 2 CLJ 1 [CA]
LAND LAW: Indefeasibility of title - Registered title - Registered owner purchased land through public auction - Existence of retention pond and structures on land - Whether illegal - Whether part of land surrendered to State Authority by previous owners - Whether principle of caveat emptor applicable - Whether right of registered owner defeated by promise by previous owner to surrender land to State Authority - Whether land validly surrendered - Whether registered owner obtained indefeasible title - National Land Code, ss. 89, 196(1)(c), 196(2)(a), 200 & 340
LAND LAW: Trespass - Trespass to land - Registered owner purchased land through public auction - Existence of retention pond and structures on land - Whether illegal and amounted to trespass - Whether part of land surrendered to State Authority by previous owners - Whether land validly surrendered - Whether registered owner obtained indefeasible title - Whether continuing presence of structures amounted to trespass - Whether registered owner entitled to damages for trespass - National Land Code, ss. 89, 196(1)(c), 196(2)(a), 200 & 340
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
- For the appellant - Leong Wai Hong, Richard Kok, Karen Tan & Tan Ko Xin; M/s Rhiza & Richard
- For the respondent - Nur Irmawatie Daud & Muhammad Haziq Hashim; State Legal Advisors, Selangor
A purchaser of a piece of land cannot, upon the discovery of certain structures on his land after purchasing the said land, claim that there is trespass to his land when he chose to sleep on his responsibility to take necessary steps to inspect the land and make inquiries before making the said purchase. [editor's note: there was appellate intervention to this case by the Federal Court vide [2022] 2 CLJ 1 FC whereof it was held that there was on the obtaining facts trespass unto the land]
Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v. Jabatan Pengairan Dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2022] 2 CLJ 33 [CA]
TORT: Trespass - Trespass to land - Land purchased through public auction - Purchaser discovered existence of retention pond and structures on land after purchasing land - Whether existence of retention pond and structures justified - Whether purchaser took necessary steps to inspect land before making purchase - Whether doctrine of caveat emptor applied - Whether there was trespass
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
- For the appellant - Leong Wai Hong, Richard Kok Chi Wei & Tan Ko Xin; M/s Rhiza & Richard
- For the respondents - Siti Fatimah Talib; SLA & Etty Eliany Tesno; SFC
An award for loss of profit, in a claim premised on a breach of contract, on top of what a party had earned through a business transacted while such contract was still subsisting, amounts to double compensation, unjust enrichment and places the party in a much better position than it would have been had the contract been performed.
Guinness Anchor Marketing Sdn Bhd v. Man Seng Trading & Marketing Sdn Bhd [2022] 2 CLJ 81 [CA]
CONTRACT: Breach - Agreement - Distributorship agreement - Termination of - Claim for losses of goodwill, bank guarantee deposit profit and general damages - Entitlement to goodwill and loss of profit - Whether assessment of damages based on correct principles of law - Contracts Act 1950, s. 74
DAMAGES: Assessment - Termination of distributorship agreement - Claim for losses of goodwill, bank guarantee deposit profit and general damages - Entitlement to goodwill and loss of profit - Whether assessment of damages based on correct principles of law - Whether there was double compensation and unjust enrichment
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM JCA
- For the appellant - Choon Hon Leng & Loo Hui En; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
- For the respondent - Krishna Dallumah & Yong Yoong Hui; M/s Krishna Dallumah & Indran
(i) A tenancy agreement between a tenant and the land's previous owner comes to an end once the land is registered in a new proprietor's name, and any continued occupation thereof by the tenant without the registered proprietor's consent, or without a fresh agreement being entered into between them is illegal and unlawful; and (ii) A 'qualified title' in land is qualified only as to its boundary, border and measurement; as to the rights conferred to its proprietor, it is similar to those conferred on the holder of a final title.
Mercu Pusu Development Sdn Bhd v. Setara Jaya Sdn Bhd [2022] 2 CLJ 106 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Tenancy agreement entered between tenant and land's previous owner - Company alienated land and registered as land's registered proprietor after tenancy agreement entered - Application for declaration that tenant's occupation of land illegal and vacant possession ought be handed to company - Whether plain and obvious tenant had no defence against application - Whether tenant's occupation of land justified by existence of tenancy agreement - Whether alienation of land to company proper and complete - Whether qualified title confers similar proprietary right as final title - Whether tenancy agreement came to end after date company registered as land proprietor - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14 r. 1
JOHAN LEE KIEN HOW JC
- For the plaintiff - KF EE & Hiew Yee Peng; M/s KF Ee & Co
- For the defendant - Ravin Woodhull & T Nayagam; M/s Tuang, Chu & Co
A property developer's payment made to a State Government in relation to the sale of Bumiputera quota house units to non-Bumiputera are expenses that are not just 'wholly and exclusively' borne for the purpose of generating income, it is also closely related, incidental and relevant to the property developer's business. Thus, such payment/expenses should be made deductible under s. 33(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967.
Mitraland Kota Damansara Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2022] 2 CLJ 140 [HC]
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Deduction - Claim for deduction of expenditure paid to State Government in relation to sale of Bumiputera quota house units to non-Bumiputera - Whether allowed for tax deduction under s. 33(1) of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether payments made in course of operating property developer's business - Whether expenditure was revenue as opposed to capital in nature - Whether there was asset or enduring benefit acquired by payments - Whether property developer acted in good faith
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('SCIT') - Deciding order - Appeal against - SCIT determined property developer's claim for deduction of expenditure paid to State Government in relation to sale of Bumiputera quota house units to non-Bumiputera not allowed for tax deduction under s. 33(1) of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether payments made in course of operating property developer's business - Whether expenditure was revenue as opposed to capital in nature - Whether there was asset or enduring benefit acquired by payments - Whether property developer acted in good faith
NOORIN BADARUDDIN J
- For the appellant - Francis Tan & Brandon Shen; M/s Azman Davidson & Co
- For the respondent - Ahmad lsyak Mohd Hassan; SRC & Nordiana Sham; RC
Since the order of community service thus meted out by the Magistrate against a youthful offender under s. 293(1)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code herein had been interrupted by the Movement Control Order, an extension of time period for the service ought to be granted to the offender; the extension would allow him to complete the service and save him from the risk of default.
PP v. Mohamad Idham Mohd Rahmat [2022] 2 CLJ 159 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Revision of Magistrate's order - Extension of time to perform sentence of community service - Youthful offender sentenced to community service for offence under s. 323 of Penal Code - Period of sentence interrupted by coronavirus pandemic and enforcement of movement control order - Whether time period for service of sentence could be extended - Whether provided for under Criminal Procedure Code - Powers of inherent jurisdiction of High Court - Whether extension serves justice to offender to complete sentence without risk of default - Whether extension allowed - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 293(1)(e)
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
- For the applicant - Khairul Anuar Abdul Halim; DPP
- For the respondent - In person
LNS Article(s)
THE (CYBER) THREAT IS REAL: REDUCING CYBER RISK BY IMPLEMENTING SIMPLE MEASURES+ [Read excerpt]
by Jen McMillan* [2022] 1 LNS(A) xiPROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN DURING WAR IN ISLAM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ISLAMIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW [Read excerpt]
by Nehaluddin Ahmad[i] Abdul Mohaimin Ayus[ii] Ahmad Masum[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) xii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealed | Superseded |
| ACT 834 | Malaysian Space Board Act 2022 | Not Yet In Force | - | - |
| ACT 833 | Finance Act 2021 | The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 29; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 36; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 45; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 52; the Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 59; the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 64 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 66 | - | - |
| ACT 832 | Societies Act 1966 (Revised 2021) | 1 December 2021 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 November 2021; First enacted in 1966 as Act of Parliament No 13 of 1966; First Revision - 1987 (Act 335 wef 19 October 1987) | - | Societies Act 1966 (Revised 1987) [ACT 335] |
| 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 | - | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1644 | Anti-Trafficking In Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Amendment) Act 2022 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 670 |
| ACT A1643 | Small Estates (Distribution) (Amendment) Act 2022 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 98 |
| ACT A1642 | Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 000 |
| ACT A1641 | Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Amendment) Act 2022 | 14 January 2022 | ACT 829 |
| ACT A1640 | Advocates Ordinance (Sabah) (Amendment) Act 2021 | 10 January 2022 [PU(B) 5/2022] | SABAH CAP. 2 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 27/2022 | Income Tax (Restriction On Deductibility of Interest) (Amendment) Rules 2022 | 31 January 2022 | 1 February 2022 | PU(A) 175/2019 |
| PU(A) 26/2022 | Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 2) Order 2022 | 28 January 2022 | 1 February 2022 | ACT 333 |
| PU(A) 25/2022 | Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) Order 2022 | 28 January 2022 | 1 February 2022 | ACT 333 |
| PU(A) 24/2022 | Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Premium Systems In Respect of Deposit-Taking Members) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 | 28 January 2022 | Assessment year of 2022 | PU(A) 34/2011 |
| PU(A) 23/2022 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) Order 2022 | 26 January 2022 | 29 January 2022 to 4 February 2022 | ACT 723 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 76/2022 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Federal Lands Commissioner | 31 January 2022 | Appointment - 16 December 2021; Revocation - 9 July 2019 | ACT 349 |
| PU(B) 75/2022 | Declaration of Road At Federal Territory of Labuan As Designated Federal Territory Road | 28 January 2022 | 29 January 2022 | ACT 333 |
| PU(B) 74/2022 | Notice Under Section 70 | 28 January 2022 | 29 January 2022 | ACT 333 |
| PU(B) 73/2022 | Notice To Third Parties | 28 January 2022 | 29 January 2022 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 72/2022 | Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 | 27 January 2022 | 1 February 2022 to 28 February 2022 | ACT 235 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 354/2021 | Kaedah-Kaedah Cukai Pendapatan (Potongan Khas Bagi Pengurangan Sewa Kepada Penyewa Selain Daripada Perusahaan Kecil Dan Sederhana) 2021 | PU(A) 480/2021 | 1 Januari 2022 | Kaedah 2 |
| PU(A) 354/2021 | Income Tax (Special Deduction For Reduction of Rental to A Tenant Other Than A Small and Medium Enterprise) Rules 2021 | PU(A) 480/2021 | 1 January 2022 | Rule 2 |
| PU(A) 353/2021 | Kaedah-Kaedah Cukai Pendapatan (Potongan Khas Bagi Pengurangan Sewa Kepada Perusahaan Kecil Dan Sederhana) 2021 | PU(A) 479/2021 | 1 Januari 2022 | Kaedah 2 |
| PU(A) 353/2021 | Income Tax (Special Deduction For Reduction of Rental to A Small and Medium Enterprise) Rules 2021 | PU(A) 479/2021 | 1 January 2022 | Rule 2 |
| PU(A) 28/2013 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 4) Order 2013 | PU(A) 477/2021 | Year of assessment 2013 | Paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 14/1977 | Dental Regulations 1976 | PU(A) 443/2021 | 1 January 2022 |
| PU(A) 219/2011 | Income Tax (Exchange of Information) Rules 2011 | PU(A) 436/2021 | 2 December 2021 |
| PU(A) 435/1994 | Atomic Energy Licensing (Small Amang Factory) (Exemption) Order 1994 | PU(A) 435/2021 | 1 June 2022 |
| PU(A) 476/2010 | Stamp Duty (Remission) (No. 4) Order 2010 | PU(A) 428/2021 | 28 December 2018 |
| PU(A) 392/2018 | Labuan Business Activity Tax (Requirements For Labuan Business Activity) Regulations 2018 | PU(A) 423/2021 | 1 January 2019 except for regulation 3; 1 January 2021 - regulation 3 |