HAVI LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD v PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM
01f-5-02-2024w Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 19 January 2025 • 01(f)-5-02/2024(W) • 4 min read
Catchwords
HAVI LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD ... PERAYU DAN PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM ... RESPONDEN Leave to appeal - Whether the Asset Purchase Agreement was a conveyance on sale within the meaning of section 21(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 which is dutiable under Item 32(a) of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949? Whether the deeming provision in clause 2.3(c)(i) of the Asset Purchase Agreement makes the said agreement an instrument (i.e. conveyance on sale) which falls under section 21(1) of the Stamp Act 1949? Whether the Asset Purchase Agreement falls under the exception under section 21(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 and if the answer is in affirmative, was the Court of Appeal correct to subject the said Agreement to ad valorem duty under Item 32(a) of First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949? Whether the Collector of Stamp Duties may raise a stamp duty assessment without specifying which sub-limb of Item 32 of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949 that the Collector has invoked? Applicable principles - Under the Act, stamp duty is imposed on an instrument and not on a transaction. Hence, if the transaction can be effected orally or by conduct, it would not attract stamp duty. Thus, one must look at the instrument in determining the applicable stamp duty.
Practice Areas
Judges (5)
Case Significance
HAVI LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD v PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated January 19, 2025 (citation: 01f-5-02-2024w). The panel comprised Abdul Karim bin Abdul Jalil, Abdul Rahman bin Sebli, Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim, Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera and Zabariah binti Mohd Yusof, with Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera delivering the judgment.
Key issues: HAVI LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD ... PERAYU.
What was the outcome of HAVI LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD v PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM?
HAVI LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD v PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM is a Federal Court decision dated January 19, 2025. The case was heard by Abdul Karim bin Abdul Jalil. See the full judgment for details.