Notios Pemberithauan EGM

BA-25-39-05/2021 Kand.
37
22/11/2023 12:39:31
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM

DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-39-05/2021
Dalam perkara Hakmilik Strata di Pusat

Dagangan Phileo Damansara 1, Pusat
Dagangan Phileo Damansara 2,
Damansara Intan Business Park, Leisure
Commerce Square dan Dataran Palma
kesemuanya terletak di Negeri Selangor
Darul Ehsan;
Dan
Dalam perkara Pengiraan dan Kutipan

Cukai Petak terhadap Parcel Hakmilik
Strata di Pusat Dagangan Phileo
Damansara 1, Pusat Phileo Damansara 2,
Damansara Intan Business Park, Leisure
Commerce Square dan Dataran Palma,
Ampang;
Dan
Dalam perkara seksyen 23C, 23I dan 81,

Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 dan Kaedah-
Kaedah Hakmilik Strata 2017
Dan
Dalam perkara Peruntukan Pengurusan

Strata 2013;
Dan
Dalam Perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah

Mahkamah 2012;
1
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
9EMVPA2krUq8d5EJJZ9NBw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Dan
Dalam Perkara seksyen 25 Akta

Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan
perenggan 1, Jadual kepada Akta
Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964.
ANTARA
SCP ASSETS SDN BHD

(No. Syarikat: 1058403-K) …PEMOHON
DAN
1. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR

2. PENTADBIR TANAH PETALING
3. PENTADBIR TANAH HULU LANGAT
…RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] In this application for judicial review pursuant to Order 53 of the

Rules of Court 2012, SCP Assets Sdn Bhd the applicant, being the
proprietor of various strata parcels held in 5 different strata
developments is essentially seeking to quash the decision of the
authorities in respect of the issuance of Parcel Rents (‘Cukai Petak’)
concerning the applicant’s parcels.
2
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
Reliefs Sought
[2] The applicant sought the following reliefs in this judicial review:
(i) Declaration that the formula used to compute and calculate

the Parcel Rent under Rules of Strata Titles (Amendment)
2017 (“Amendment Rules 2017”) is unreasonable, irrational,
illegal and/or ultra vires of the provisions under the Strata
Titles Act 1985 (“STA 1985”) and/or Strata Management Act
2013 (“SMA 2013”);
(ii) Declaration that the formula used to compute and calculate

the Parcel Rent payable by the applicant in respect of its
parcels for the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 is unlawful,
illegal and unenforceable;
(iii) Alternatively, a Declaration that the respondents have failed

and/or neglected to compute and/or calculate the correct
Parcel Rent amount payable by the applicant in respect of its
parcels for the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 in
accordance with the provisions of STA 1985 and Rules of
Strata Titles (Amendment) 2017;
(iv) Order of Certiorari to quash all bills of Parcel Rent issued in

respect of the applicant’s parcels for the year 2018, 2019,
2020 and 2021; and
(v) Order of Mandamus to direct the respondents to re-calculate

and re-compute the amount of Parcel Rent payable in respect
of the applicant’s parcels for the year 2018, 2019, 2020 and
2021 reasonably and fairly and/or in accordance with the
provisions of STA 1985 and SMA 2013.
3
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
Grounds for Judicial Review
[3] In this application for judicial review, the applicant put for the
following grounds:
(i) the method of computation and calculation of the parcel rent

rates by the respondents is based on the Amendment Rules
2017 and Schedule VI thereto;
(ii) the computation and calculation is unfair, inequitable and/or

inconsistent with the concept of share units under the STA
1985 and SMA 2013;
(iii) the calculations by the respondents are against the very

scheme and spirit of introducing the parcel rents, which was
meant to replace quit rent and not meant to implement new
tax;
(iv) the respondents’ computation itself is also not in accordance

with the Amendment Rules 2017;
(v) the respondent’s decision to implement the computation,

imposition and collection in the manner set out by them are
unreasonable and irrational, which resulted in drastic and
illogical increase in the rates; and
(vi) the respondents have failed to take into account relevant

consideration and laws/regulations in imposing the new rates
under parcel rent.
4
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
Factual Background
[4] The facts of this application as garnered from the documents filed
by parties are as follows. The applicant is the registered proprietor
of 15 parcels in 5 different strata developments/complexes. The
particulars this 5 strata developments may be encapsulated as:
(a) 7 strata parcels in Pusat Dagangan Phileo Damansara 1

(“Parcels in PD 1”);
(b) 5 strata parcels in Pusat Dagangan Phileo Damansara 2
(“Parcels in PD 2”);
(c) 1 strata parcel in Damansara Intan Business Park (“Parcel in
Damansara Intan”);
(d) 1 strata parcel in Leisure Commerce Square (“Parcel in LCS”);
and
(e) 1 strata parcel in Dataran Palma (“Parcel in Dataran Palma”).
(These parcels will be referred to collectively as “the applicant’s

Parcels”)
[5] There are different Management Corporations established in each

of the abovementioned schemes/developments as the applicant’s
Parcels are within different stratified developments.
[6] As the applicant’s Parcels are within different stratified

developments, there are different Management Corporations
established in each of the abovementioned schemes/developments.
5
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[7] The method of implementations and payments of Quit Rent by the
applicant differed according to the practices in each complex and its
Management Corporations.
[8] For instance, in respect of the parcel in Damansara Intan, the

Management Corporation would bill and collect directly from the
applicant the apportioned Quit Rent payable by the applicant.
[9] In respect of the other 4 complexes notably the parcels in PD 1, PD

2, LCS and Dataran Palma, there was no direct billing to the
applicant. Instead, the Management Corporations therein would
use ‘service charges’ collected from the applicant and other parcel
owners to pay the Quit Rent.
[10] In May 2019, the applicant received Parcel Rent bills in respect of
Parcels in Damansara Intan, LCS and Dataran Palma.
[11] In July 2019, the applicant received Parcel Rent bills in respect of
parcel in PD 1.
[12] The Parcel Rent bills received were for 2019 as well as for amounts
outstanding for the year 2018.
[13] While the applicant did not receive any Parcel Rent bills for the year
2018, it had in fact paid for the Quit Rent bills for the year 2018.
[14] According to applicant the Parcel Rents charged from 2018 are high
and unreasonable compared to Quit Rent. The changes in rates are
summarized and reproduced as follows:
“(a) Parcels in PD 1, the total rates for:
(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM5,053.44;
6
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
(ii) Parcel Rent commencing 2018: RM301,480.00;
The Parcel Rent is 60 times more than Quit Rent.
(b) Parcels in PD 2, the total rates for:
(c) Parcel in Damansara Intan, the total rates for:
(d) Parcel in LCS, the total rates for:
(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM11,063.80;
7
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
(e) Parcel in Dataran Palma, the total rates for:
(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM413.81;
The Parcel Rent is 23 times more than Quit Rent.”
[15] By way of a letter dated 30.05.2019, the applicant, inter alia, sought
confirmation on the formula for the computation from the first
respondent and also requested that the rates be recalculated and
reduced in respect of parcels in Damansara Intan, LCS and Dataran
Palma. As there was no response, the applicant issued 2 reminder
letters dated 24.06.2019 and 23.07.2019 to the first respondent.
[16] Also, by way of letter dated 24.07.2019, the applicant issued a

similar letter as the above to the first respondent followed by a
reminder letter dated 23.09.2019 in respect of the parcels in PD 1.
[17] As there was no response from the first respondent, acting in an

abundance of caution, the applicant appointed a firm of professional
Surveyor Consultant (“the Consultant”) to verify the method of
calculation and computation by the respondents. The applicant
informed the first respondent of the appointment and sought for a
quick resolution by way of its letter dated 12.06.2020.
[18] The consultant completed the verification. The consultant concluded

that there is a difference in the method of calculation used by the
respondents and the consultant. The consultant, under the
instruction of the applicant, issued letters dated 15.06.2020 to the
first respondent regarding the same.
8
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[19] By way of letters dated 15.07.2020, the first respondent alleged that
the Parcel Rent in the State of Selangor was carried out pursuant to
the new amendments to Strata Titles Act 1985 and furnished
examples of the calculations.
[20] As the applicant’s parcels are within different stratified

developments, each governed by its own Management Corporation,
the applicant's method of implementing and paying Quit Rent varied
based on the practices observed in each complex and its
Management Corporations. As an example, for the Parcel in
Damansara Intan, the Management Corporation would invoice and
directly collect the apportioned Quit Rent from the applicant.
[21] In respect of the other 4 complexes notably the parcels in PD 1, PD

2, LCS and Dataran Palma, there was no direct billing to the
applicant. Instead, the Management Corporations therein would use
‘service charges’ collected from the applicant and other parcel
owners to pay the Quit Rent.
[22] Regarding the other four complexes, specifically the parcels in PD

1, PD 2, LCS, and Dataran Palma, the applicant was not directly
billed. Instead, the Management Corporations in those complexes
utilized 'service charges' collected from the applicant and other
parcel owners to cover the Quit Rent.
[23] In May 2019, bills for Parcel Rent were issued to the applicant for
the parcels in Damansara Intan, LCS, and Dataran Palma. In July
2019, the applicant received Parcel Rent bills for the Parcel in PD
1.
9
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[24] The bills for Parcel Rent that were received covered the year 2019
and claimed outstanding amounts for the year 2018. Although the
applicant did not receive any Parcel Rent bills for the year 2018, the
applicant had made payments for the Quit Rent bills for that year.
[25] The applicant contends the charges for Parcel Rents from 2018 are
excessively high and unreasonable when compared to Quit Rent.
The rate variations are outlined as follows:
(a) Parcels in PD 1, the total rates for:
(b) Parcels in PD 2, the total rates for:
(c) Parcel in Damansara Intan, the total rates for:
10
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
(d) Parcel in LCS, the total rates for:
(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM11,063.80;
(e) Parcel in Dataran Palma, the total rates for:
(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM413.81;
[26] Through three distinct letters dated 30.05.2019, the applicant,

among other things, sought clarification on the computation formula
from the first respondent. Additionally, they requested a
recalculation and reduction of rates for parcels in Damansara Intan,
LCS, and Dataran Palma. The applicant sent two reminder letters
on 24.06.2019 and 23.07.2019 to the first respondent.
[27] On 24.07.2019, the applicant sent a letter to the first respondent

concerning Parcels in PD 1. A reminder letter dated 23.09.2019,
followed. Due to the absence of a response from the first
respondent, the applicant, exercising caution, engaged a
professional Surveyor Consultant to verify the calculation method
11
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
used by the respondents. The applicant notified the first respondent
of this appointment and urged a prompt resolution in a letter dated
12.06.2020.
[28] The verification process by the Consultant was successfully

completed, revealing a disparity in the calculation method employed
by the respondents compared to that of the Consultant. Under the
applicant's direction, the Consultant issued letters on 15.06.2020,
notifying the first respondent of these findings.
[29] In letters dated 15.07.2020, the first respondent asserted that the
Parcel Rent in the State of Selangor was conducted in accordance
with the new amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1985, providing
examples of the calculations.
Principles relating to Judicial Review
[30] The grounds for an application for judicial review are illegality,
irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality.
[31] In the Federal Court case, Akira Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd v.
Nadiah Zee Abdullah & Another Appeal [2018] 2 CLJ 513; [2018] 2
MLJ 537, the liberal approach on judicial review in R Rama
Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ
147; [1997] 1 MLJ 145 has been re-emphasised at pp. 547 to 548
(CLJ); pp. 571 to 572 (MLJ) as follows:
[45] In the same appeal, Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ (Eusoff Chin in

agreement) said that an award could be reviewed for
substance as well as for process:
12
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
It is often said that judicial review is concerned not
with the decision but the decision making process.
(See eg Chief Constable of North Wales Police v.
Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155). This proposition, at full
face value, may well convey the impression that the
jurisdiction of the courts in Judicial Review
proceedings is confined to cases where the
aggrieved party has not received fair treatment by
the authority to which he has been subjected. Put
differently, in the words of Lord Diplock in Council
of Civil Service Unions & Ors v. Minister for the Civil
Service [1985] AC 374, where the impugned
decision is flawed on the ground of procedural
impropriety.
But Lord Diplock’s other grounds for impugning a

decision susceptible to Judicial Review make it
abundantly clear that such a decision is also open a
challenge on grounds of ‘illegality’ and ‘irrationality’
and, in practice, this permits the courts to scrutinise
such decisions not only for process, but also for
substance.
In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock

(at pp. 410- 411) defined the three grounds of
review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii)
procedural impropriety. This is how he put it:
By ‘illegality’ as a ground for Judicial Review, I mean

that the decision maker must understand correctly
the law that regulates his decision making power
and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is
par excellence a justiciable question to be decided,
in the event of dispute, by those persons, the
13
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is
exercisable.
By ‘irrationality’, I mean what can by now be

succinctly referred to as ‘Wednesbury
unreasonableness’ (see Associated Provincial
Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp. [1948] 1
KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so
outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted
moral standards that no sensible person who had
applied his mind to the question to be decided could
have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this
category is a question that judges by their training
and experience should be well equipped to answer,
or else there would be something badly wrong with
our judicial system. To justify the courts’ exercise of
this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to
Viscount Radcliffe’s ingenious explanation in
Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] AC 14, or irrationality as
a ground for a court’s reversal of a decision by
ascribing it to an inferred though undefinable
mistake of law by the decision maker. ‘Irrationality’
by now can stand on its own feet as an accepted
ground on which a decision may be attacked by
Judicial Re
view. I have described the third head as ‘procedural

impropriety’ rather than failure to observe basic
rules of natural justice or failure to act with
procedural fairness towards the person who will be
affected by the decision. This is because
susceptibility to judicial review under this head
covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to
observe procedural rules that are expressly laid
14
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
down in the legislative instrument by which its
jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure
does not involve any denial of natural justice.
Lord Diplock also mentioned ‘proportionality’ as a possible

fourth ground of review which called for development”
[32] Further, the meaning of error of law has also been explained in the
case of Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Transport
Workers Union [1995] 2 CLJ 748; [1995] 2 MLJ 317 in the following
words:
“Is neither feasible nor desirable to attempt an exhaustive

definition of what amounts to an error of law, for the categories of
such an error are not closed. But it may be said that an error of
law would be disclosed if the decision-maker asks himself the
wrong question or takes into account irrelevant considerations or
omits to take into account relevant considerations (what may be
conveniently termed Anisminic error) or if he misconstrues the
terms of any relevant statute, or misapplies or misstates a
principle of the general law.”
[33] The test applicable is the objective test as was held by the Federal
Court in the case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop Of Kuala
Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2014] 6 CLJ 541; [2014] 4
MLJ 765, as follows:
“(1) (per Arifin Zakaria Chief Justice) It is trite that the test
applicable in judicial review now is the objective test. In
considering whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct
test, it is pertinent to consider the whole body of the judgments of
15
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
the judges of the Court of Appeal and not by merely looking at the
terms used in the judgments. The courts will give great weight to
the views of the Executive on matters of national security. The
Court of Appeal had applied the objective test in arriving at its
decision. Had it applied the subjective test, it would not be
necessary for it to consider the substance of the first respondent’s
decision.”
Applicant’s submissions
[34] According to the applicant, the method of computation and

calculation of the Parcel Rent rates by the respondents is based on
the Amendment Rules 2017 and Schedule VI thereto. The
computation and calculation is unfair, inequitable and/or
inconsistent with the concept of share units under the STA 1985 and
SMA 2013.
[35] It was further submitted by the applicant that the calculations by the
respondents are against the very scheme and spirit of introducing
the Parcel Rents, which was meant to replace Quit Rent and not
meant to implement new tax. It was argued that the respondents’
computation itself is not in accordance with the Amendment Rules
2017.
[36] The applicant argued that the respondents’ decision to implement

the computation, imposition and collection in the manner set out by
them are unreasonable and irrational, which resulted in drastic and
illogical increase in the rates. And that the respondents have failed
to take into account relevant consideration and laws/regulations in
imposing the new rates under Parcel Rent.
16
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[37] The implementation of Parcel Rent ensures that the parcel owners
receive bills directly from the Land Office (Pejabat Tanah) and are
responsible to pay directly, unlike previously under Quit Rent, where
parcel owners are to pay Management Corporations or the Joint
Management Bodies, as the bills are issued to those bodies.
[38] The new subsections 23C(1), 23C(8) and 23C(9) STA 1985 states
as follows:
(a) the Land Administrator is to determine the amount of rent;
(b) it is to be computed on the basis of a rate per square metre

for each parcel; and
(c) where the rent in relation to any parcel is or includes a fraction

of a ringgit, it is to be rounded up to one ringgit or to the
nearest ringgit above the amount so computed.
[39] By way of the subsidiary legislations and regulations namely the

new Rules 13(1) and 13(2) Amendment Rules 2017 and the new
Schedule VI under the Amendment Rules 2017 as well as the
Direction and the Guidelines, the respondents have used ‘sen unit’
in the method of computation and calculations.
[40] The respondents whilst using sen unit as the base for the
calculation, and without converting into ringgit, had maintained the
result of the calculation (which is supposed to result in sen unit) as
if it has been calculated in ringgit. This has resulted in an enormous
and unjustified increase, which is not within the purpose or object of
the Act.
17
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[41] Under the new Rule 14, the State Authority has a discretion to vary
the rates of the Parcel Rent specified in Schedule VI as it deems
fits, but the respondents have till to date insist on maintaining the
unjust method of calculation.
[42] According to the applicant, in making policy decision, the authorities

ought to take into consideration the impact of the decision against
the socio-economic settings of the material time.
[43] The applicant’s case is that the respondents’ calculations are

incorrect, erroneous and not in accordance with the provisions of
the law. Relevant considerations were not taken into account, which
resulted in illogical, unreasonable, inconsistent and absurd
outcome. The Parcel Rent rates varies between 5 to 70 times more
than the rates that were payable under the Quit Rent regime.
Respondent’s submissions
[44] According to the respondents, section 4C of the Strata Title Act 1985
[STA] that was inserted through Strata Titles (Amendment) Act
2016.The effective date on the imposition of the Parcel Rent shall
be based on the notification in the Gazette and as far as Selangor
is concerned, it shall start on 1.01.2018 (P.U(B) 174/2017) is not
disputed.
[45] Section 23C (1) of the STA confers powers on the State Authority
among other on determination of the Parcel Rent despite to endorse
the effective date for the Parcel Rent to be imposed in Issue
Document of Tittle (IDT).
[46] Kaedah-Kaedah Hakmilik Strata 2015 was amended and few

provisions was inserted therein namely regulations 13-17 through
18
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
Kaedah-Kaedah Hakmilik Strata (Pindaan) 2017. The regulation 13
is the formula that was gazetted to be implemented in Selangor as
far as the calculation of parcel rent is concerned.
[47] The imposition of the Parcel Rent is authorized by the law and within
the ambit of the written law namely the Act and regulations.
[48] Kaedah-Kaedah Hakmilik Strata 2015 & Kaedah-Kaedah Hakmilik

Strata (Pindaan) 2017 is legally promulgated within the power
granted by the law. In other words, section 81 of the STA is the
enabling provisions for both regulations to be passed.
[49] Since the law authorizes for the imposition of the Parcel Rent and
the subsidiary legislation had explained on method and calculation
and this is empowered, thus, the law shall be obeyed and the
plaintiff at this juncture cannot raise an issue of authority the
respondents has in imposing the charges.
[50] The applicant did not deny that the method of calculation is correct,
however, the applicant’s view is that the outcome shall be further
divided into another 100 to get the outcome in RM.
[51] Since the admission is clear and unequivocal despite the provision
of Order 27 rule 3, entitle the judgment or orders to be made, the
respondents submit that this court must take cognisance of this
admission and therefore making the adverse order to the applicant
by dismissing the application.
[52] The calculation method used by the respondents are based on the
formula that is prescribed by the regulations and thus, it is the law.
Based on the formula, it has already been shown that the formula
had taken into account in dividing into 100.
19
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[53] Mathematically, if not dividing into 100 as per the formula as per
prescribed by the law, the figure is 100 times higher.
[54] This is not the case that the imposition of the Parcel Rents are
arbitrarily imposed against the applicant but the imposition is based
on the power empowered by the act and the formula is in
accordance to the regulations enacted originating its power from the
said Act.
[55] This method used by the applicant is obviously against the formula
prescribed by the regulations. The applicant’s contention is that, to
get the amount of Parcel Rent in RM, the multiplier on Kadar Cukai
Mengikut Daerah dan aktiviti had been converted into RM by moving
2 decimal points to the left automatically and multiply with keluasan
petak atau block sementara and the outcome to multiply Faktor
Cukai Hakmilik Strata.
[56] The purpose of dividing into 100 is to get the result or the outcome
in RM form and not in cent form. Following either of the above
formula above, the result is identical. The applicant on the other
hand, had moved the formula of Kadar Cukai Mengikut Daerah dan
Aktiviti one from cent form to RM form initially was correct. However,
the effect of moving that into RM, had faded away the functionality
to divide into 100 as per the formula.
[57] The duty of this court is to give effect of the law and not to create
another law and formula as per the direction of the applicant.
[58] The respondent submitted that the law is clear on its point and its
promulgation is authorized by the law, it is not for the applicant to
20
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
come to the court to challenge the implementation as against the
law. The calculation as correct and precise.
Decision of this court
[59] At the crux of this application for judicial review is the calculation of
the for the rates imposed for the Parcel Rent which was previously
known as Quit Rent. It is the applicant’s contention that the
calculation was done erroneously.
[60] There is no dispute as to the validity of the provisions of the law

passed by the Selangor State Assembly. What is in dispute is the
calculation of the said Parcel Rent.
[61] According to the applicant, the calculation is erroneous and

mathematically incorrect.
[62] The first respondent, in response to the issues raised by the

applicants, have alleged that calculation ought to be as follows:
31,053 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑖 𝑥 330.70 𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝑅𝑀102,692.271

𝑥1=
100 @ 𝑅𝑀102,693.00
[63] The Kadar Cukai Mengikut Daerah dan Aktiviti is in sen unit and
therefore the result should be in sen unit. It was argued that the
logical and appropriate result of any calculation ought to be in sen
unit which is then converted into ringgit. This is done by dividing the
100. The rate is then rounded up in accordance with subsection
23C(9) of the STA 1985.
21
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[64] The respondents had, in calculating the Parcel Rent, used the sen
unit in its calculation. The applicant argued that the calculation of
the Parcel Rent using the sen unit as base for the calculation had
calculated it as if it is in ringgit, which had resulted in an erroneous
calculation.
[65] The applicant submitted that when a decision of a public authority is

contrary to exiting laws and regulations, the decision is liable to be
quashed. To support this contention, the applicant cited the case of
Abdul Hakim @ Ramizu bin Othman & Ors v Menteri Dalam Negeri,
Malaysia [2018] 12 MLJ.
[66] Pertaining to the issue of error in calculation, the applicant cited the
case of BX Steel Posco Cold Rolled Sheet Co Ltd v Minister of
Finance & ORs (FIW Steel Sdn Bhd, intervener) [2021] 7 MLJ 604.
[67] The respondents referred to the section 4C of the STA that was
inserted through Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2016. The effective
date on the imposition of the Parcel Rent shall be based on the
notification in the Gazette and as far as Selangor is concerned, it
shall start on 1.01.2018 (P.U(B) 174/2017) and this is not disputed.
[68] Subsection 23C (1) of the STA confers powers on the State
Authority among other on determination of the Parcel Rent despite
to endorse the effective date for the Parcel Rent to be imposed in
Issue Document of Tittle (IDT).
[69] The respondents cited section 4C of the STA, which was introduced
through the Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2016. The
commencement date for the imposition of Parcel Rent is contingent
upon the notification in the Gazette. In the case of Selangor, it is
22
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
acknowledged to commence on 1.01.2018 (P.U(B) 174/2017), and
this fact is not contested. Subsection 23C (1) of the STA grants
authority to the State Authority, among other things, to determine
Parcel Rent, irrespective of endorsing the effective date in the Issue
Document of Title (IDT).
[70] To implement the aforementioned amendment, the Strata Titles

Rules 2015 were amended, incorporating several provisions
through the Strata Titles Rules (Amendment) 2017, specifically
regulations 13 to 17. Regulation 13, encompassing the formula
officially gazetted for application in Selangor regarding parcel rent
calculation, is outlined as follows:
Keluasan Kadar
faktor Kadar
Petak atau Cukai
cukai minima
Blok x mengikut x @
hakmilik setiap
sementara daerah dan
strata petak
(mp2) aktiviti
100
[71] From the information provided, the multiplier involves the Keluasan
Petak or Block Sementara per square meter, Kadar Cukai Mengikut
Daerah dan Aktiviti, and Faktor Cukai Hakmilik Strata or Kadar
Minima Setiap Petak. The Kadar Cukai Mengikut daerah dan Aktiviti
is specified in Jadual IV to the Strata Titles Rules (Amendment)
2017. The rate for calculation within the aforementioned formula is
contingent upon the location of the parcel and its corresponding
activity.
23
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[72] For Faktor Cukai Hakmilik Strata, according to the Afidavit Jawapan
Responden Pertama in Enclosure 19, it had been determined
through Arahan Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor Bilangan
2/2019 that was approved by the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri
ke 17/2017 (MMKN) that is exhibited as AH-2 and its formula is as
below:
Keluasan tanah lot (M2)
Jumlah keluasan Petak dan Blok Sementara (M2)
[73] Based on the provisions cited above, it is clear that the imposition
of the Parcel Rent is in accordance with the provisions of the law.
This court is satisfied the imposition of the Parcel Rent is in
accordance with the provisions of the law. Section 23C of the STA
empowers the imposition of the Parcel Rent.
[74] Relating to the calculation of the Parcel Rent, paragraph 18 of

Enclosure 19 the affidavit of reply of the first respondent Aziz bin
Hairon had set out the formula for calculation. This was not denied
by the applicant. However, the applicant insists the calculation must
be further divided by 100 to obtain an outcome in ringgit. See: Vithal
Kumar a/l Jayaraman v Azman bin Md Nor [2010] 2 MLJ 67 and
Perwira Habib Bank (M) Bhd v Hj Abdullah Hj Sulaiman & Anor
[1985] 2 CLJ 489.
[75] The respondent argues that this is not a case where the Parcel Rent
was imposed arbitrarily. There is a formula which must be used to
calculate the Parcel Rent. This formula is in accordance with the
regulations which have been enacted.
24
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
[76] The applicant contents that to get the amount of Parcel Rent in RM,
the multiplier on Kadar Cukai Mengikut Daerah dan aktiviti had been
converted into RM by moving 2 decimal points to the left
automatically and multiply with keluasan petak atau block
sementara and the outcome to multiply Faktor Cukai Hakmilik
Strata.
[77] The respondents contend, this method used by the applicant is

obviously against the formula prescribed by the regulations.
[78] Based on the Statutory Formula as below the respondent showed

this court that will result in the same answer:
Keluasan
Kadar Cukai faktor Kadar
Petak atau
mengikut cukai minima
Blok x x @
daerah dan hakmilik setiap
sementara
aktiviti strata petak
(mp2)
100
First Method:
Kadar Cukai
mengikut daerah
dan aktiviti 330.70
=
100 100
Keluasan Petak
atau Blok
= X = RM102,692.27
sementara
(mp2)
25
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
Second Method:
Keluasan Petak atau Blok Kadar Cukai mengikut

x
sementara (mp2) daerah dan aktiviti
31,053 x 330.70
= 10,269,227.10 (A)
= A ÷ 100
= RM102,692.27
[79] The reason for dividing by 100 is to express the result or outcome
in Malaysian Ringgit (RM) rather than in cents. Using either of the
formulas mentioned above yields identical results.
[80] This court is of the view, the applicant initially made the correct
adjustment by converting the Kadar Cukai Mengikut Daerah dan
Aktiviti formula from cent form to RM form. However, this
transformation into RM diminished the functionality of dividing by
100 as specified in the formula.
[81] With respect, having considered the submission by both parties, this
court agrees with the contention by the respondents.
[82] After converting from cent form to RM form, the applicant is required
to immediately multiply it by the size of the parcel. The resulting
value is then multiplied by 1 (Faktor Cukai Mengikut Strata),
representing the Parcel Rent to be imposed. The applicant
continued the process, despite having already converted Kadar
Cukai Mengikut Daerah dan Aktiviti from cent form to RM form. After
multiplying it by the parcel size, they erroneously divided the
26
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
outcome by 100 again. It appears that the division by 100 was
applied twice, which in the view of this court is incorrect.
Conclusion
[83] For the abovementioned reasons, this court finds no illegality in the
laws pertaining to the calculation of Parcel Rent. This court is
satisfied that the computation, imposition and collection of the
Parcel Rent are not unreasonable or irrational.
[84] This court therefore dismisses this application for judicial review.
Costs of RM 5,000.00 subject to allocator.
Date: 22 November 2023
(SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN)

Judge
High Court of Malaya,
Shah Alam
27
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021
Counsel:
For The Applicant: Ling Chee Wei, David Soosay, Ashok

Kandiah a/l K. Shanmuganathan
Tetuan Ho, Loke & Koh
Advocates & Solicitors
A-1-1, Megan Avenue 1,
189, Jalan Tun Razak,
50400 Kuala Lumpur.
general@hlk.com.my
+6 03 2166 2882
For the Respondent: Khairul Nizam bin Abu Bakar

Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang,
Tingkat 4, Podium Utara,
Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri
Selangor
40503 Shah Alam, Selangor.
28
S/NBA-25-39-05/2021

Notios Pemberithauan EGM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notios Pemberithauan EGM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BA-25-39-05/2021 Kand.

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM

Dalam perkara Hakmilik Strata di Pusat

Dalam perkara Pengiraan dan Kutipan

Dalam perkara seksyen 23C, 23I dan 81,

Dalam perkara Peruntukan Pengurusan

Dalam Perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah

Dalam Perkara seksyen 25 Akta

SCP ASSETS SDN BHD

1. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR

[1] In this application for judicial review pursuant to Order 53 of the

(i) Declaration that the formula used to compute and calculate

(ii) Declaration that the formula used to compute and calculate

(iii) Alternatively, a Declaration that the respondents have failed

(iv) Order of Certiorari to quash all bills of Parcel Rent issued in

(v) Order of Mandamus to direct the respondents to re-calculate

(i) the method of computation and calculation of the parcel rent

(ii) the computation and calculation is unfair, inequitable and/or

(iii) the calculations by the respondents are against the very

(iv) the respondents’ computation itself is also not in accordance

(v) the respondent’s decision to implement the computation,

(vi) the respondents have failed to take into account relevant

(a) 7 strata parcels in Pusat Dagangan Phileo Damansara 1

(These parcels will be referred to collectively as “the applicant’s

[5] There are different Management Corporations established in each

[6] As the applicant’s Parcels are within different stratified

[8] For instance, in respect of the parcel in Damansara Intan, the

[9] In respect of the other 4 complexes notably the parcels in PD 1, PD

“(a) Parcels in PD 1, the total rates for:

(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM5,053.44;

The Parcel Rent is 60 times more than Quit Rent.

(b) Parcels in PD 2, the total rates for:

(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM1,925.91;

(ii) Parcel Rent commencing 2018: RM134,968.00;

The Parcel Rent is 70 times more than Quit Rent.

(c) Parcel in Damansara Intan, the total rates for:

(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM2,613.16;

(ii) Parcel Rent commencing 2018: RM40,202.00;

The Parcel Rent is 15 times more than Quit Rent.

(d) Parcel in LCS, the total rates for:

(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM11,063.80;

(ii) Parcel Rent commencing 2018: RM54,450.00;

The Parcel Rent is 5 times more than Quit Rent.

(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM413.81;

(ii) Parcel Rent commencing 2018: RM9,685.00;

The Parcel Rent is 23 times more than Quit Rent.”

[16] Also, by way of letter dated 24.07.2019, the applicant issued a

[17] As there was no response from the first respondent, acting in an

[18] The consultant completed the verification. The consultant concluded

[20] As the applicant’s parcels are within different stratified

[21] In respect of the other 4 complexes notably the parcels in PD 1, PD

[22] Regarding the other four complexes, specifically the parcels in PD

(a) Parcels in PD 1, the total rates for:

(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM5,053.44;

(ii) Parcel Rent commencing 2018: RM301,480.00;

The Parcel Rent is 60 times more than Quit Rent.

(b) Parcels in PD 2, the total rates for:

(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM1,925.91;

(ii) Parcel Rent commencing 2018: RM134,968.00;

The Parcel Rent is 70 times more than Quit Rent.

(c) Parcel in Damansara Intan, the total rates for:

(i) Quit Rent for 2018: RM2,613.16;

(ii) Parcel Rent commencing 2018: RM40,202.00;