Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax v Dynamac Enterprise: Zero-Rated Supply & GST Compliance

The Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax appealed against the GST Board of Review's decision regarding Dynamac Enterprise's entitlement to zero-rate its supplies. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Dynamac Enterprise had complied with the specific directions issued by the Comptroller and was therefore entitled to zero-rate its supplies. The court also addressed the issue of interest on refunds, ruling in favor of Dynamac Enterprise.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Tax

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court held that Dynamac Enterprise was entitled to zero-rate its supplies, as it complied with specific directions from the Comptroller.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Comptroller of Goods and Services TaxAppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedLostPang Mei Yu, Rajiv Rai, Adam Liew Wei Loong
Dynamac EnterpriseRespondentPartnershipAppeal UpheldWonStephen Phua Lye Huat, Kuan Cheng Tuck, Tneu Jia Jin

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Pang Mei YuInland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Rajiv RaiInland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Adam Liew Wei LoongInland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Stephen Phua Lye HuatRHTLaw Asia LLP
Kuan Cheng TuckRHTLaw Asia LLP
Tneu Jia JinRHTLaw Asia LLP

4. Facts

  1. Dynamac Enterprise is an exporter of electronic products.
  2. Dynamac Enterprise was registered under the GST regime since 1994.
  3. The Comptroller conducted an audit on Dynamac Enterprise in January 2016.
  4. The Comptroller issued Notices of Assessment to tax the Disputed Supplies at 7% GST.
  5. Dynamac Enterprise maintained export evidence as per the Specific Directions issued by the Comptroller in 2006.
  6. The Comptroller audited Dynamac Enterprise in May 2007 and April 2013 and affirmed its right to zero-rate its supplies.
  7. The GST Board of Review agreed that Dynamac Enterprise should not be denied zero-rating.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax v Dynamac Enterprise, Tax Appeal No 16 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 61

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Dynamac Enterprise registered under the Goods and Services Tax regime.
Comptroller issued Specific Directions to Dynamac Enterprise.
Comptroller conducted an audit on Dynamac Enterprise.
IRAS e-tax guide entitled “GST: Guide on Exports” issued.
Comptroller conducted an audit on Dynamac Enterprise.
Disputed Supplies made between April 2013 and October 2016.
Comptroller conducted an audit on Dynamac Enterprise.
Decision delivered on Goods and Services Tax Board of Review Appeals No. 1 & 2 of 2018.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Zero-Rated Supply
    • Outcome: The court held that Dynamac Enterprise was entitled to zero-rate its supplies because it had complied with the specific directions issued by the Comptroller.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Applicability of Export Evidence Requirements
    • Outcome: The court found that the Specific Directions, rather than the ETG, were the applicable export evidence requirements for Dynamac Enterprise.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Jurisdiction of the GST Board of Review
    • Outcome: The court held that the Board had jurisdiction to determine the applicable export evidence requirements in this case.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
  4. Interest on Input Tax Refunds
    • Outcome: The court ruled that interest should be payable to Dynamac Enterprise from the date the input tax refunds were due until the date the Comptroller eventually paid the refunds.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. No remedies sought

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Tax Law
  • Tax Litigation

11. Industries

  • Retail
  • Electronics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Comptroller of Income Tax v AQQSingapore Court of AppealYes[2014] SGCA 15SingaporeCited regarding the threshold for the court to review a finding of fact by the Board.
Zhao Hui Fang v Comptroller of Stamp DutiesN/AYes[2017] 4 SLR 925SingaporeCited for the principle that e-tax Guides are merely guidelines and are not law.
Comptroller of Income Tax v GE Pacific Pte LtdN/AYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 948SingaporeCited for the principle that practice is not law.
Asia Development Pte Ltd v Attorney-GeneralN/AYes[2020] 1 SLR 886SingaporeCited regarding the requirements for imposing legally binding statutory conditions.
TYC Investment Pte Ltd v Chan Siew Lee JannieN/AYes[2018] 4 SLR 293SingaporeCited regarding the principle that the annulment of disputed assessments means that the respondent should be restored to the position as if the disputed assessments had never been issued.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A, 2005 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 8 of the Goods and Services Tax ActSingapore
s 21 of the Goods and Services Tax ActSingapore
s 21(6) of the GSTASingapore
s 54(2) of the GSTASingapore
s 19(11) of the GSTASingapore
s 19(10) GSTASingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Goods and Services Tax
  • GST
  • Zero-rating
  • Specific Directions
  • ETG
  • Export evidence
  • Disputed Supplies
  • Notices of Assessment
  • Input tax refunds
  • Missing Trader Fraud

15.2 Keywords

  • Goods and Services Tax
  • GST
  • Zero-rating
  • Export
  • Singapore
  • Tax
  • Revenue Law

16. Subjects

  • Taxation
  • Goods and Services Tax
  • International Trade

17. Areas of Law

  • Revenue Law
  • Goods and Services Tax