Anand Raj

On the court record

Anand Raj appears in the reported corpus as revenue-law and public-law counsel, with tax judicial review and stamp duty prominent, alongside data-protection and constitutional matters. His stamp-duty work is visible in a Court of Appeal appeal, in which he acted as respondent's counsel, on whether an asset purchase agreement for the sale of telecommunication towers constituted a "conveyance on sale" attracting ad valorem duty under section 21(1) and Item 32(a) of the First Schedule to the Stamp Act 1949. His judicial-review practice against the revenue authority recurs: at the Federal Court he appeared in an administrative-law appeal on a judicial review against a decision of the Director General of Inland Revenue and whether the taxpayer's application had merit, and at first instance on whether judicial review was appropriate where a statutory appeal was available, engaging the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over decisions said to be illegal, irrational or procedurally improper.

His reported work also reaches the protection of taxpayer data and constitutional rights. He was engaged as respondent's counsel in a Court of Appeal matter seeking an order of prohibition under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, concerning a decision to disclose customers' information said to be invalid in law, engaging section 39(b)(ii) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 and section 81 of the Income Tax Act 1967. He also appeared as intervener in the Federal Court matter on the right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution and the parliamentary restrictions permitted by Article 10(2)(b). Across these reported decisions his work concentrates on revenue law and the judicial review of the tax authority, with a distinct footprint in data protection and constitutional litigation, marking Anand Raj as counsel focused on tax and public law at the appellate level. Across these reported decisions the recurring thread is the supervision of the revenue authority and other public bodies by the courts — whether by judicial review of an assessment, by an order of prohibition restraining the disclosure of protected data, or by a constitutional challenge — marking a practice built around tax and public law.