1. ) Khoh Keow Bok 2. ) Goh Chye Choo @ Goh Sai Tiang 3. ) Yeap Hin Eng 4. ) Noor Azura Bt Haji Kassim v 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH IMIGRESEN, JABATAN IMIGRESEN MALAYSIA
Catchwords
Full Hearing - Judicial review – Applicants as directors seek to quash via certiorari the decision of the Respondents in imposing a travel ban due to tax assessed by the 1st Respondent to be paid by the company. Issues: - Whether the 1st Respondent’s request to the 2nd Respondent to impose a travel ban is amenable to review? - Whether the 1st Respondent committed an error of law when they requested such travel ban? - Whether there was any reason to belief that the Applicants were about or likely to leave Malaysia permanently, or abscond without paying tax? - Whether Section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 ousts this Court’s review jurisdiction? Held: - In light of the recent Federal Court decisions, Section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 contravenes the doctrine of separation of powers and therefore this Court may review decisions of the Executive. - The 1st Respondent’s action requesting the travel ban is amenable to review. - By virtue of Section 31 of the Sales Tax Act 2018, a request for travel ban must be based on a belief that the Applicants were about or likely to leave Malaysia permanently or abscond without paying tax. - As there is no basis nor averments in this case that there was a belief of absconding or leaving without paying tax, and the sole reason was that there was tax owed, the Court finds that the imposition of the travel ban is tainted with irrationality, illegality and a breach of natural justice. - The Application is therefore allowed and the action/decision of the 1st Respondent to request the imposition of travel ban on the Applicants is hereby quashed and an order of mandamus is issued against the 2nd Respondent to remove the travel ban.
Practice Areas
Full Hearing Issues: Held: - The 1st Respondent’s action requesting the travel ban is amenable to review. - By virtue of Section 31 of the Sales Tax Act 2018, a request for travel ban must be based on a belief that the Applicants were about or likely to leave Malaysia permanently or abscond without paying tax. - As there is no basis nor averments in this case that there was a belief of absconding or leaving without paying tax, and the sole reason was that there was tax owed, the Court finds that the imposition of the travel ban is tainted with irrationality, illegality and a breach of natural justice. - The Application is therefore allowed and the action/decision of the 1st Respondent to request the imposition of travel ban on the Applicants is hereby quashed and an order of mandamus is issued against the 2nd Respondent to remove the travel ban.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
1. ) Khoh Keow Bok 2. ) Goh Chye Choo @ Goh Sai Tiang 3. ) Yeap Hin Eng 4. ) ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated February 6, 2025 (citation: pa-25-32-06-2024). The case was decided by Anand Ponnudurai.
Key issues: - The 1st Respondent’s action requesting the travel ban is amenable to review..
What was the outcome of 1. ) Khoh Keow Bok 2. ) Goh Chye Choo @ Goh Sai Tiang 3. ) Yeap Hin Eng 4. ) ...?
1. ) Khoh Keow Bok 2. ) Goh Chye Choo @ Goh Sai Tiang 3. ) Yeap Hin Eng 4. ) ... is a High Court decision dated February 6, 2025. The case was heard by Anand Ponnudurai. See the full judgment for details.