|
HCAL112/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 112 OF 2013
--------------------------
| |
IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review by the Applicants pursuant to Order 53, rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A)
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER OF the decisions by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to issue Notices of Assessment and Demand for Additional Tax under s.82A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112)
|
---------------------------
| |
KOO MING KOWN |
1st Applicant |
| |
|
|
| |
TADAO MURAKAMI |
2nd Applicant |
--------------------------
| Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: 21 August 2013 |
| Date of Decision: 21 August 2013 |
--------------------
D E C I S I O N
--------------------
1. I believe that the legal position has been encapsulated with admirable clarity in Conray International Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2012] 4 HKLRD 792 at paragraph 26.
2. I am not satisfied that this is an exceptional case where the court’s jurisdiction in judicial review should be invoked. This is all the more so when there is on foot an appeal to the Board of Review. A Notice of Appeal was issued in those proceedings on 24 May 2013.
3. I am unable to agree with the argument that the jurisdiction of the Board of Review does not cover the legal challenges which underpin the intended judicial review application. I believe that the terms of the relevant statutory provisions indeed allow the applicants to ventilate the legal challenges in question before the Board of Review.
4. Further, I am not convinced by the argument that it is desirable in terms of economy of resources that the Board of Review proceedings should be stayed whilst the legal challenges are ventilated in a judicial review. One of the lessons derived from experience is that such projected saving often turns out to be unwarranted. On the other hand, the projected saving must be balanced against the delay to the Board of Review proceedings.
5. I should mention that I would, in any case, decline to grant leave in respect of Ground 3 of the Grounds of Review. The materials before me suggest that the Commissioner had considered the representations made to him prior to issuing the Notices of Assessment and Demand.
6. In the premises, I decline this application.
|
(Anthony Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
|
Mr Russell Coleman, SC and Mr Jose-Antonio Maurellet, instructed by Wilkinson & Grist, for the applicants
Please refer to CACV182/2013 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal. |