Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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.

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us