KUCHING: The High Court here on Tuesday (Feb 4), fixed March 13 to decide on an application by Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) for a judicial review to declare the Sarawak State Sales Tax (SST) as null and void.
High Court Judge Azahari Kamal Ramli fixed the date after hearing the submissions by Petronas — represented by counsels Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Alvin Chong, and State Attorney General Datuk Talat Mahmood Abdul Rashid — on behalf of the Sarawak government.
Petronas is seeking a judicial review to declare the SST imposed by the Sarawak government, through its Comptroller of SST, as contravening the Federal Constitution and is null and void.
The application, among others, sought a declaration from the court that the State Sales Tax (Taxable Goods and Rate of Tax) (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2018, Section 2, 7, 8, 11(1), 12(1), 12(6), 12(7) and 15(d) of the Sarawak Sales Tax Ordinance 1998 and Regulation 19 C, Sarawak State Sales Tax Regulations 1998 are ultra vires the Federal Constitution and thus null and void.
In his submission on Monday (Feb 3), Malik said the Sarawak government's SST should not be imposed in a carte blanche approach on anything they deem appropriate, but to do so with certain restrictions allowed by the Federal Constitution.
He said the power to impose SST is only in respect of the matters in the Federal Constitution’s states list, while oil and petroleum came under the constitution’s Federal list.
Fong, who continued with his submission on Tuesday, said any conditions for the imposition of the SST must only be spelt out by Article 95B (3) of the Federal Constitution.
This article, among others, stated that the Legislature of Sabah or Sarawak may also make laws for imposing sales taxes, and any sales tax imposed by State law in the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall be deemed to be among the matters enumerated in the State List and not in the Federal List.
He said the Article must also be given a purposive interpretation; in recognition it was incorporated in the constitution as one of the special constitutional arrangements that had been agreed upon before the formation of Malaysia.
“Any interpretation of Article 95B (3) which would in any way erodes or diminished this constitutional, must be avoided,” he added.
Source: The Edge Markets