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 2026

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The main argument of the taxpayer was that had the GST Act 2014 not been repealed, the taxpayer would be entitled to claim for ITC refund as a claim can be made within six years. 

As the GST Repeal Act 2018 allows refund for tax overpaid or erroneously paid to be made as if the GST Act 2014 was not repealed.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that the repeal of a written law in whole or in part shall not affect any right accrued or incurred under the repealed law.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

While the IBS incorporates taxable events previously covered by state and municipal taxes, its governance and operational logic represent a significant departure from the legacy model
The new office on the fourth floor of 4 More London will span 14,230 square feet, with the potential to expand to the first and second floors
MNEs now face a shift from modelling to execution as the side‑by‑side deal forces tax teams to upgrade systems, harmonise data, and prevent costly pillar two mismatches
As recent surveys suggest a disconnect between AI adoption and employee engagement, the big four risk digging themselves into a strategic hole
Almost three-quarters of surveyed tax professionals are concerned about inaccurate AI outputs; in other news, Dentons hired a partner from CMS to lead its Belgian tax team
Long-running, high-value and complex enquiries are a significant reason for HM Revenue and Customs’s increased TP yield, experts suggest
Landmark legal updates in India have led companies to prioritise specialised tax advisers over accountants, ITR has found
Brazil’s shift to a nationwide consumption tax is more than conceptual; it fundamentally transforms municipal revenue, enforcement, and administrative disputes
While some advisers praised the ruling’s definition of a ‘voucher’ for VAT purposes, a UK partner said the case left unanswered questions
While pillar two has been enacted on paper in Brazil, companies are encountering a range of practical compliance issues, ITR has heard
Gift this article