A Procedural Catastrophe
In the legal corridors of justice, deadlines are sacred. For one company, Selectcool Sdn Bhd, a small lapse turned into a catastrophic defeat. Their appeal to the Court of Appeal, which sought to overturn a High Court decision favoring the tax authorities, was dismissed—not for lack of merit, but due to procedural non-compliance.
The Lapse
The company’s counsel had filed the appeal against a decision by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT), but errors began to mount. They failed to file the Record of Appeal and the Memorandum of Appeal within the prescribed 90-day period, as required by the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 (ROCA). To compound the issue, the Memorandum of Appeal submitted was not in Bahasa Malaysia, breaching mandatory language requirements under the Federal Constitution and National Language Act.
When the tax authorities issued a preliminary objection highlighting these violations, Selectcool’s counsel scrambled to rectify the situation. However, their application to file the documents out of time was late and lacked any substantive explanation.
The Courtroom Drama
In the Court of Appeal, the company’s counsel pleaded for leniency. “Your Honours, this was an unintended mistake. We failed to realize the non-compliance at the time of filing,” the lawyer admitted.
The Revenue’s representative was unrelenting. “Rules are the backbone of our legal system. Non-compliance not only undermines the system but sets a dangerous precedent. The applicant had ample time and multiple reminders to comply but failed at every turn,” the counsel argued.
The judges deliberated. Their decision was unanimous: the application was dismissed. “There is no reasonable explanation for the delay or the non-compliance,” the lead judge declared. “Counsel has a professional duty to ensure procedural adherence. Allowing such lapses would erode the integrity of the judicial process.”
With that, the appeal was struck out, and the company was ordered to pay RM5,000 in costs to the Revenue.
The Lesson Learned
This case is a stark reminder that the success of an appeal is not just about the strength of arguments but also about strict adherence to procedural rules. Deadlines and mandatory requirements, such as filing documents in the national language, are non-negotiable.
For legal practitioners, this serves as a wake-up call to uphold their professional duties diligently. For businesses, it underscores the importance of engaging competent counsel who understand the criticality of procedural compliance.
In the end, the company’s arguments were left unheard—not due to their substance, but because they were lost in the maze of procedural oversight. This case stands as a cautionary tale of how small errors can have monumental consequences in the pursuit of justice.
Kaedah 18 Aturan 7 dan Aturan 7A, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan 1994
