Landmark GST refund ruling in Malaysia

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Landmark GST refund ruling in Malaysia

Sponsored by

sponsored-firm-rosli-dahlan-saravana-partnership.png
This is the first case of its kind in Malaysia

DP Naban and S Saravana Kumar of Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership discuss a case where the GST Repeal Act 2018 in relation to input tax refund was examined by the High Court in Malaysia.

The High Court in Malaysia allowed the taxpayer’s judicial review application to challenge the decision of customs in rejecting the taxpayer’s application for input tax credit refund (ITC refund). 

In 2018, the taxpayer had incorrectly accounted for goods and services tax (GST) to customs in the GST returns filed by them. The taxpayer did not take into account tax invoices for staff labour costs which was incurred in the course of the taxpayer’s business. This resulted in the taxpayer having over accounted for GST by not offsetting the input tax credit against the output tax. 

The taxpayer applied for the ITC refund, which was rejected by customs as it was not made within 120 days from the appointed date. Dissatisfied by the custom’s decision, the taxpayer filed court proceedings. 

The main argument of the taxpayer was that had the GST Act 2014 not been repealed, the taxpayer would be entitled to claim for ITC refund as a claim can be made within six years. 

As the GST Repeal Act 2018 allows refund for tax overpaid or erroneously paid to be made as if the GST Act 2014 was not repealed. The argument was that both Acts must be read together with the principle that the repeal of a written law in whole or in part shall not affect any right accrued or incurred under the repealed law.

The customs argument was that the GST Repeal Act 2018 stipulates that ITC refund must be made within 120 days from the appointed date and thus, the taxpayer was out of time.

The High Court ruled that customs had erroneously rejected the taxpayer’s claim for an ITC refund. The taxpayer was awarded the ITC refund with 8% interest running from the date the refund was due. This is the first case of its kind in Malaysia where the scope of the GST Repeal Act 2018 in relation to input tax refund was examined by the High Court. 

The taxpayer was successfully represented by S Saravana Kumar and Datuk DP Naban from the tax, SST and customs practice of the law firm, Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership (RDS).

 

DP Naban

Senior Partner, Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership

E: naban@rdslawpartners.com


S Saravana Kumar

Partner, Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership

E: sara@rdslawpartners.com

 

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The reduction would still ‘leave room’ for pillar two and further reductions would be possible, one expert tells ITR
Funding from private equity house EQT will propel WTS Germany to compete with the ‘big four’, the firm’s leaders told ITR in an extensive interview
New Zealand is bucking the trend of its international counterparts with its investment-friendly visa approach. Here’s what high-net-worth investors need to know
However, nearly 10% of reports only disclosed activities in tax havens, according to the Fair Tax Foundation; in other news, Plante Moran sealed a US east coast merger
While pillar one is still alive, it will apply to a smaller group of companies, Brian Foley also told ITR
Tax teams that centralise and automate their pillar two data will have a much easier time during reporting season, says Hank Moonen, CEO of TaxModel
While GCCs drive efficiency for multinationals, they also present a host of TP risks that should be considered carefully
PwC Ireland has also called for simplifying Ireland’s tax code and a reduction in its capital gains tax in a pre-budget submission
Effective audit management requires more than documentation; it’s the way taxpayers engage that can shape audit direction, manage procedural ambiguity, and preserve options for appeal or litigation
American advisers are falling short of client expectations when it comes to providing value-added services, but remaining tight-lipped won’t make the problem go away
Gift this article