website statistics
feed
Home arrow News arrow Legal/General News arrow Penalty charges to stay
Advertisement
Penalty charges to stay PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 01 August 2008 08:20am

Zainal: ‘I’ll have to check and discuss matters concerning assessment with our legal department’©The Star (Used by permission)
by Elan Perumal, Stuart Michael, Lim Chia Ying

LOCAL governments in Selangor will continue to impose penalty charges for late or unpaid assessment charges until they get a directive from the state government ordering them to do otherwise.

Selayang Municipal Council (MPS) president Zainal Abidin Azim said the council would continue with the penalty charges for those who failed to pay their assessment rates on time.

He said this when asked to comment on the ruling by the Federal Court recently that local authorities did not have the legal right to impose penalty charges on assessment tax defaulters who pay late or failed to pay their assessment rates.

The court was reported to have made the landmark decision on July 18 in favour of Generation Products Sdn Bhd against the Klang Municipal Council (MPK) for continuous imposition of penalty for late settlement of assessment rates since 1985.

Zainal said this was news to his council and that he was unaware of the announcement.

“I’ll have to check and discuss matters concerning assessment with our legal department,” he said.

“Over the next few days, we have to discuss and maybe amend our bylaws or Act. We are waiting for the state government to give us directives.

“As far as we know, imposing the penalty charges has always been a norm for us.”

Meanwhile, a check with the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) revealed that the council does not charge interest on late payment of assessment fees.

PJ mayor Datuk Mohamad Roslan Sakiman said MBPJ only charged a fee for issuing a late notice for unpaid arrears.

According to the website of the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ), it stated that if the owner fails to pay assessment rates within a given deadline, then a penalty of 5% will be imposed on the total arrears.

It stated that a Form E notice will be issued and payment has to be made within 15 days from the date of issuance of notice.

After that, a warrant of arrest will be enforced and a 10% interest rate will be imposed on the entire arrears.

This is followed by an action of sealing and auctioning of the property and later court action.

While it was difficult to reach some MPSJ officers yesterday, its public relations officer Azfarizal Abdul Rashid claimed that the council had always done things according to by-laws and does not carry out unlawful action.

Shah Alam City Council mayor Mazalan Mohd Noor said the judgment did not affect the council’s method of collecting assessment.

He said this was because the council only penalised the errant ratepayers once.

“The errant ratepayers will not be repeatedly penalised for late payment as the council does not practice compounding ‘interest’ while collecting the arrears.”

Mazalan also said the council had not received any directive on whether there was a need to revise its system from the Selangor government.

Comments (2)Add Comment
The Local Councils have to be fair to the people.
written by Tan Peek Guat, Friday, August 01 2008 10:28 am

There should not be any misunderstanding at all.

It is not that penalty charges cannot be imposed BUT that the amount of penalty charges imposed should be reasonable and covers only administrative charges, and certainly cannot and should not be so high as a penalty of 10% of the unpaid assessment over-due and unpaid.

It is only right and proper for all Local Governments to abide by the ruling/decision.

MBPJ now tries to divert the issue and say that it does not charge interest. While the MBPJ does not charge interest, it does charge 10%penalty on late and over-due payments as well. This it should stop doing if it wants to be right, proper and righteous.

What right has MBPJ to charge interest when it is not a financial institution?

Tan Peek Guat

Judgment not abide to?
written by Tan Chun Ming, Friday, August 01 2008 02:30 pm

Despite the Court had given its judgment, it is interesting to note how the local government can neglect it and wait for the state government's directive?

I always thought that judicial interpretation of the law should always be abide to and as it involved public interest, the local government should refrain itself from ignoring the legally binding judgment.

It would create a bad impression if the executive body need not abide to the judgment until a directive of their superior be given.

Tan Chun Ming


Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Username Password
Remember Me | Register | Lost Password?

PKR wants to restore immunity of monarchy



show last 4hrs - 24hrs