THM International v Comptroller of GST: Input Tax Refunds & Supply of Goods Dispute
THM International Import & Export Pte Ltd appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against the Goods and Services Tax Board of Review's decision, which denied their input tax refund claim. The Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax rejected THM International's claim for input tax refunds. Aedit Abdullah J dismissed the appeal, finding that the primary basis of the appeal was the Appellant’s dissatisfaction with the Board’s findings of fact.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Tax
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
THM International's appeal against the GST Board's decision denying input tax refunds was dismissed. The court found no supply of goods.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| THM International Import & Export Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Liu Hern Kuan, Chen Rong |
| Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Li Yourui Charles, Chua Shu Yuan Delvin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Liu Hern Kuan | Insights Law LLC |
| Chen Rong | Insights Law LLC |
| Li Yourui Charles | Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore |
| Chua Shu Yuan Delvin | Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore |
4. Facts
- THM International claimed S$1,341,557.00 in input tax refunds from the Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax.
- The refunds were for supplies of "Osperia" Micro Secure Digital Cards and "Osperia" flash drives.
- The Comptroller rejected the claims, stating that there was no genuine supply of goods.
- THM International appealed to the Goods and Services Tax Board of Review.
- The Board upheld the Comptroller's decision that there was no supply of the goods.
- The Board found that THM International failed to provide sufficient evidence of the supply.
- The Board considered evidence from the purported manufacturer and upstream supplier who denied manufacturing or supplying the goods.
5. Formal Citations
- THM International Import & Export Pte Ltd v Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax, , [2024] SGHC 97
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Goods allegedly supplied between 1 April 2016 to 31 August 2016 | |
| Goods allegedly supplied between 1 April 2016 to 31 August 2016 | |
| Tax Appeal No 5 of 2022 and Summons No 2250 of 2022 | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Scope of appeal from decision of GST Board of Review
- Outcome: The court clarified the limited scope of appeal to the High Court against decisions of the Board, emphasizing that it is restricted to questions of law or mixed law and fact, not questions of fact alone.
- Category: Procedural
- Appeal on question of law and question of mixed law and fact
- Outcome: The court clarified the distinction between questions of fact, law, and mixed law and fact, noting that the appeal only raised questions of fact.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether appeal on fact or law
- Outcome: The court determined that the appeal was primarily based on factual findings of the Board, which are generally not appealable to the High Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Existence of supply of goods
- Outcome: The court upheld the Board's finding that there was no actual supply of goods, which was a key factor in denying the input tax refund claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Burden of proof in GST appeals
- Outcome: The court clarified that the burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the Respondent’s decision to disallow its input tax claim was wrong.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Reversal of the Goods and Services Tax Board of Review’s decision
- Input tax refunds
9. Cause of Actions
- Appeal against decision of Goods and Services Tax Board of Review
10. Practice Areas
- Tax Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Import
- Export
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHY v The Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax | Goods and Services Tax Board of Review | Yes | [2023] SGGST 1 | Singapore | The Board upheld the Respondent’s determination that there had been no supply of the Goods. |
| NP and another v Comptroller of Income Tax | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 599 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that appeals on questions of fact alone are not permitted. |
| Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow and another | House of Lords | Yes | [1956] AC 14 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court is not a second opinion, where there is reasonable ground for the first. |
| ZF v Comptroller of Income Tax | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 1044 | Singapore | Cited with approval the statement in Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow and another [1956] AC 14. |
| Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Procter & Gamble UK | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2009] EWCA Civ 407 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that particular deference is to be given to specialist Tribunals. |
| AH and others (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees intervening) | House of Lords | Yes | [2008] 1 AC 678 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that ordinary courts should approach appeals from expert tribunals with an appropriate degree of caution. |
| Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax v Dynamac Enterprise | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 442 | Singapore | Cited for the principle allowing curial intervention in respect of a finding of fact by the Board if it is one that no reasonable body of members constituting a board of review could have reached. |
| Comptroller of Income Tax v AQQ and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 847 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court asks itself is whether “no reasonable body of members constituting an Income Tax Review Board could have reached the findings reached by the Board” |
| Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprise Pty Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1993) 115 ALR 1 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the distinction between a question of fact and a question of law can be elusive. |
| Barghouthi v ING Custodians Pty Ltd | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2003] FCA 1272 | Australia | Cited for the principle that one should not overlook the difficulty, at times, of distinguishing between errors of law and errors of fact and of understanding the place of what are sometimes called questions of mixed fact and law. |
| Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act) v Southam Inc | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1997] 1 SCR 748 | Canada | Cited for the principle that questions of law are questions about what the correct legal test is; questions of fact are questions about what actually took place between the parties; and questions of mixed law and fact are questions about whether the facts satisfy the legal tests. |
| Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2003] 1 WLR 1929 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that there are two kinds of questions of fact: there are questions of fact; and there are questions of law as to which lawyers have decided that it would be inexpedient for an appellate tribunal to have to form an independent judgment. |
| Lawson v Serco Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2006] UKHL 3 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the classification of something as either “fact” or “law” turns “upon whether as a matter of policy one thinks that it is a decision which an appellate body with jurisdiction limited to errors of law should be able to review. |
| Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2001) 202 CLR 439 | Australia | Cited for the principle that whether facts as found answer a statutory description or satisfy statutory criteria will very frequently be exclusively a question of law. |
| Optigen Ltd and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners | European Court of Justice | Yes | [2006] Ch 218 | European Union | Cited to determine whether the right to deduct input VAT of a taxable person who carries out such transactions can be affected by the fact that, in the chain of supply of which those transactions form part, another prior or subsequent transaction is vitiated by VAT fraud, without that taxable person knowing or having any means of knowing. |
| SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1471 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is erroneous to speak in terms of an “evidential burden of proof” since the evidential burden is strictly not a burden of proof per se. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Goods and Services Tax Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Goods and Services Tax Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) s 52(3) | Singapore |
| Goods and Services Tax Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) s 54(1) | Singapore |
| Goods and Services Tax Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) s 54(2) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 108 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Goods and Services Tax
- Input Tax Refund
- Supply of Goods
- Burden of Proof
- Evidential Burden
- Missing Trader Fraud
- Board of Review
- GST Act
15.2 Keywords
- Goods and Services Tax
- GST
- Input Tax
- Refund
- Supply of Goods
- Tax Appeal
16. Subjects
- Tax Appeals
- Goods and Services Tax
- Revenue Law
17. Areas of Law
- Revenue Law
- Goods and Services Tax
- Tax Law
- Civil Procedure