PUTRAJAYA (Oct 26): The Court of Appeal today instructed the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) to file its record of appeal by Nov 26, concerning its appeal against the High Court’s decision to dismiss its application for a summary judgement against Datuk Seri Najib Razak's daughter Nooryana Najwa Najib who allegedly owes RM10.3 million in taxes.

The case management of the matter was done before the Court of Appeal's senior assistant registrar P Sarulatha today.

Nooryana's counsel Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee confirmed the outcome when contacted today as the appellate court also fixed that same day for case management.

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

On Aug 26, it was reported that Shah Alam High Court's Justice Datuk Faizah Jamaludin had dismissed the Malaysian government's application for a summary judgement to be entered against Nooryana.

Faizah ruled that the IRB officer who deposed the affidavit in support of the government’s application did not state in the affidavit her belief that Nooryana “had no defence” against the government’s claim on tax due and payable contrary.

The judge also found that the certificate exhibited by the government, as proof of the amount of tax due and payable, was not signed by the IRB director-general as required under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act 1967.

“There is no evidence before this court that the person who signed the certificate was an officer appointed to exercise any function of the director-general ‘in writing under his hand’ pursuant to Section 136 (5) of the act to sign the certificate on his behalf.

“A certificate signed by LHDN’s (IRB) ketua penolong pengarah (principal assistant director), cawangan guaman Kuala Lumpur (Kuala Lumpur legal branch), without any evidence that she was appointed to exercise any function of the director-general under the Income Tax Act 1967 or was authorised in writing to sign the certificate on his behalf, is not sufficient evidence of the amount of tax due.

“The certificate is also not sufficient authority for this court to give judgement on tax due and payable by the defendant,” she ruled then.

However, the court did not make any decision on whether the IRB was entitled to make the claim.

It was reported that the government had filed a writ of summons and statement of claim through the IRB, naming Nooryana, 33, as the defendant.

According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that Nooryana, 32, failed to submit her individual income tax return forms to the IRB, under Section 77 of the Income Tax Act 1967, for the years of assessment of 2011 to 2017.

The IRB contended that to date, the defendant had not paid the amount of income tax owed, including the increases, worth a total of RM10,335,292.36.

The plaintiff is seeking from the defendant a sum of RM10,335,292.36, interest on this sum at a rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgement to the date of realisation, costs and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.