High Court fixes June 16 to hear Shafee's application to stay LHDN lawsuit over RM9.4mil in tax arrears

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has fixed June 16 to hear an application by lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who is seeking to stay a lawsuit against him by the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN) over RM9.4mil in tax arrears.

The application would be heard before Judicial Commissioner Mohd Arief Emran Ariffin.

The date was fixed during case management before deputy registrar Nurul Izzah Hasan Basri here on Wednesday (Feb 16).

Lawyer Wee Yeong Kang represented Shafee while revenue counsel Mohamad Ezmeer Zulkarnaen Asnizar appeared for LHDN during the proceedings.

Shafee, in his stay application dated Nov 3, 2021, wanted a stay of proceedings in the LHDN suit against him pending the outcome of tax-related appeals filed by former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his son Datuk Mohd Nazifuddin at the Federal Court regarding the payment of income tax amounting to RM1.69bil and RM37.6mil, respectively, to the LHDN.

Shafee said the outcome of the appeals by Najib and Nazifuddin could affect the suit against him.

The application for leave to appeal by Najib and Nazifuddin at the apex court was initially fixed for hearing on Wednesday (Feb 16) but the matter has been vacated.

On May 6, 2021, LHDN filed the suit against Shafee seeking payment amounting to RM9,414,708.32 in tax arrears for five assessment years.

Shafee is the lead counsel in the defence team representing Najib in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd-linked criminal cases.

On Sept 27, 2021, LHDN applied for its suit against Shafee to be decided through summary judgment, on the grounds that the defendant had failed to pay the income tax arrears within the stipulated time.

A summary judgment is where a court decides a case without hearing the testimony of witnesses.

On Nov 3, 2021, Shafee filed for the matter to be stayed.

On Jan 26, LHDN, through an affidavit-in-reply, sought for the High Court to set aside Shafee's stay application on grounds that it was an abuse of court process.