Court to hear IRB's bid for summary judgment against Najib on Apr 17

KUALA LUMPUR (March 6): The High Court has fixed April 17 to hear the Inland Revenue Board (IRB)’s application to obtain summary judgment against former premier Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak over unpaid taxes amounting to RM1.69 billion.

Justice Datuk Ahmad Bache fixed the date in chambers after dismissing the Pekan lawmaker’s application for a stay of proceedings last week.

A summary judgment is where the court could make a decision based on the facts of the case without having to proceed to a full trial.

Najib's lawyer Muhammad Farhan Shafee confirmed the April 17 hearing with reporters.

Parties from Najib and IRB have been ordered to file their written submissions two weeks before the hearing dates.

The government, through the board, had filed the suit against Najib on June 25 last year, where it sought over RM1.69 billion with an annual 5% interest rate beginning from the date of judgment.

The government claimed that the former premier had failed to pay his income tax from 2011 to 2017 within the stipulated 30-day period after assessment notices were issued by the IRB.

Justice Ahmad ruled the Pekan MP's application for a stay is against public interests and ordered him to pay RM15,000 costs.

"A case of this nature and magnitude involving public figures like the defendant (Najib) is to be heard and should be disposed of speedily.

"If a stay is to be granted, it would result in the hearing of the present suit is to be deferred indefinitely," he said.

Najib had made the stay application as he wants the outcome of his present trials to be determined first before this case is heard.

"The inherent powers of the court (to grant a stay) should not be used to override the substantive law (the Income Tax Act 1967)," the judge said, adding that the argument of special circumstances by Najib's lawyers cannot be accepted.

“This court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff (Malaysian government) had the monetary ability to compensate the defendant (Najib) should he succeed in the appeal at the Dispute Resolution Department of the IRB (the special commissioner of income tax).

“There is no unquantifiable loss that could not be recovered from the plaintiff should the defendant succeed in the appeal. This reason merits consideration in favour of the plaintiff to not granting the stay. On the other hand, the defendant has not shown any cogent evidence to prove the plaintiff's inability to compensate,” the judge said.

Justice Ahmad in his 28-page judgment cited the Federal Court case in Arumugam Pillai vs Government of Malaysia (1980) that “the provision of pay first and talk afterwards” may arguably be a harsh one but it is an intentional provision of the legislature, having regard to the incidence of tax evasion.

“What sympathy there is must be reserved for the innocent who are made to suffer along with the tax evaders,” he said in quoting the apex court judgment.

Click here to see commercial properties for sale in Kuala Lumpur.

Click here for more property stories.