Ketua Pengarah Kastam Di Raja Malaysia v Batu Tiga Quarry Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s): Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia

Respondent(s): Batu Tiga Quarry Sdn Bhd

• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli

• The respondent, a company operating a quarry, zero-rated its supply of quarry products exported to Singapore under section 17(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 ("GST Act").
• The appellant issued a Bill of Demand for unpaid GST and penalties, contending that the respondent was not the "exporter" because the customs export declaration forms (K2 Forms) and export permits were in the name of the respondent’s wholly-owned subsidiary.
• The respondent sought judicial review to quash the Bill of Demand, asserting that it managed all operations, bore all costs, and utilized the subsidiary’s permits under a formal inter-company agreement to facilitate the exports.

• Whether the naming of a specific party in the K2 Form is a mandatory legal prerequisite under section 17(1)(b) of the GST Act to qualify a supply as zero-rated.
• Whether the definition of "exporter" under section 2 of the Customs Act 1967 (read with section 174 of the GST Act) is restricted to the declarant in the K2 Form or extends to the owner and manager of the goods.
• Whether the Court may lift the corporate veil to treat a parent company and its subsidiary as a single commercial unit for the purpose of determining the identity of the exporter in a taxing dispute.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly; as section 17(1)(b) of the GST Act does not expressly require a claimant to be named in the K2 Form, the appellant could not impose such a requirement.
• The Court ruled that the definition of "exporter" in the Customs Act 1967 is broad and includes the owner of the goods or any person acting on their behalf, meaning the K2 Form is not conclusive evidence of who the exporter is for GST purposes.
• The Court affirmed the lifting of the corporate veil, finding that the respondent and its subsidiary functioned as a single entity where the respondent exercised full operational control and bore all financial risks, thereby qualifying as the actual exporter.