Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

REVENUE LAW – SERVICE TAX – RECOVERY

In brief 

  •  In general, service tax is a consumption tax levied and charged on any taxable services (including digital services) provided in Malaysia by a registered person in the course of his business, as well as any imported taxable services acquired by any person doing business in Malaysia, and finally any digital services provided to a Malaysian consumer by a foreign registered person.

When does a person who is engaged in the business of delivering a taxable service become a taxable person?

  •  The plain reading of the Service Tax Act Regulations 1975 shows that whether or not a person is a taxable person is determined by whether or not the person was carrying on a business providing the taxable service and met the threshold set forth in the Group for that taxable service in the Second Schedule of the STA Regulations 1975. If the person answers yes to both questions, he or she is a taxable person. Furthermore, a “taxable person” under Group C of the Second Schedule of the STA Regulations 1975, is a restaurant located outside a hotel that provides or sells, among other things, food and beverages and has an annual turnover of more than RM3 million.

For example: In the case of Restoran Wong Solo (Shah Alam) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Kerajaan Malaysia [2022] 7 MLJ 381, the first appellant argue that he did not apply for a licence and was not licenced under the Service Tax Act 1975, it was not a taxable person under the Act. However, it was held that the first appellant operates a restaurant located outside a hotel providing or selling food and drinks and the annual sales turnover was more than RM3m. Therefore, pursuant to S.3 of the STA 1975, reg 3 of the STA 1975 and Group C of the Second Schedule of the STA 1975, the first appellant once it reaches the threshold of RM3m, becomes a taxable person. 

Is it possible for the respondent to only collect service tax owed and payable from a taxable person once the person has been convicted of a violation of the STA 1975?

  •  Any service tax due and payable, as well as any penalty or surcharge payable under this Act, may be collected as a civil debt owed to the government, according to Section 15(1) of the STA 1975. It gives the respondent the right to collect any service tax that is owed to him as a civil obligation. It allows the respondent to sue the taxable person in civil court to recover the service tax that is owed and payable. Therefore, it would be a criminal offence for any person who, among others, fails, or refuses to comply with the requirements in S.7, S.7A, S.8, S.10, S.10A, S.11, S.12, S.14 or S.19 of the Act stated under S.29 of the STA 1975.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami