SARAWAK VS PETRONAS KE MAHKAMAH JANUARI 2020

1. Mahkamah Putrajaya, 6 Januari 2020

UMUM mengetahui bahawa Kerajaan Sarawak telah menyaman Petronas kerana kegagalan mereka untuk membayar 5% cukai jualan produk petroleum sebanyak RM1.3 bilion bagi tempoh 1 Januari hingga 30 Jun 2019.  Dalam pada itu ada sesuatu yang tidak enak didengar bilamana pada tanggal 10 Disember 2019 yang lepas iaitu di Mahkamah Tinggi pula pihak Petronas telah mengemukakan perintah mahkamah agar mereka dikecualikan daripada cukai tersebut.  

Menariknya apa yang berlaku pada tarikh itu adalah hanya Petronas yang didengar permintaan mereka sementara Sarawak langsung tidak diwakili atau diberitahu mengenainya.  Dek kerana itu, Sarawak melalui Peguam Negeri Sarawak telah memohon untuk ianya diperdengarkan semula kerana telah MELANGGAR PERATURAN KEADILAN YANG SEDIA ADA yang mana kita sendiri sudah almaklum mana mungkin satu kes boleh didengar tanpa melibatkan kedua-dua pihak berada di mahkamah.  

Atas bantahan yang dikemukakan oleh Kerajaan Sarawak itu maka Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan telah mengarahkan untuk pendengaran semula kes ini ditetapkan pada 6hb Januari 2020 di Mahkamah Putrajaya.

2. Mahkamah Tinggi Kuching, 13 Januari 2020

Dan berkenaan dengan saman tidak membayar cukai beserta penalti pula, sidang mahkamah telah ditetapkan pada tanggal 13 Januari 2020 di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuching.  Kerajaan Sarawak akan mengemukakan beberapa perkara di dalam sidang mahkamah itu kelak iaitu seperti berikut:

=====   Versi Bahasa Inggeris  ======

a) Whether section 2(1) of the Petroleum Development Act, 1974 (“PDA”) is null and void by reason that it contravenes Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution as being a law which seeks to deprive the 2 nd Defendant of property, namely Petroleum, found on State land within Sarawak, without adequate compensation;

b) b) If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, whether any agreement, acts or conduct taken or instrument issued pursuant to section 2 of PDA, are void, invalid and /or unconstitutional;

c) Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 2 of PDA, the Defendant has to comply with other written laws , including but not limited to the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 and the Land Code of Sarawak, regulating the exploration, exploitation and mining of petroleum in Sarawak and the use and occupation of land for such purposes;

d) If (which is denied) the Petroleum Agreement or the cash payment agreement dated 27th March 1975 entered into between the 2nd Plaintiff and the Defendant is valid and subsisting, then whether 3 Clause 4 thereof precludes the 2nd Plaintiff and/or the State Legislature of Sarawak from passing laws imposing State Sales Tax on the Defendant;

e) Whether upon a proper interpretation of Article 95B(3) of the Federal Constitution read with Article 74(3); Article 95B (3);

(i) prohibits or disentitles the State Legislature from imposing state sales tax on petroleum products;

(ii) allows for State Sales Tax to be imposed on petroleum products where there is already a federal sales tax levied on petroleum products;

f) Whether the Instrument titled “Grant of Rights, Liberties and Privileges in respect of Petroleum” in the schedule of PDA, is unconstitutional, invalid, null and void;

g) Whether having regard to (a) the contents of the letter from the 1 st Plaintiff to the Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant dated 28th of August 2019 (b) the Letter dated 23rd September, 2019 from the Executive Vice President and Group Financial Officer of the Defendant to the 1 st Plaintiff (c) the Notice of Assessment issued under section 21(1) of the State Sales Tax Ordinance and (d) the Certificate issued by the 1 st Plaintiff under section 27(2) of the said Ordinance, the Defendant is estopped from denying its liability for the amounts claimed herein as pleaded in the Statement Claim.

h) Whether section 28 of the State Sales Tax Ordinance 1998 and the certificate issued here under is unconstitutional for contravening the guarantees for fair trial access to justice and due process under Articles 5 & 8 of the Federal Constitution or violates the doctrine of separation of power. 

These questions have to be decided because Petronas in their Defence pleaded that because of the Petroleum Development Act, 1974 (PDA) and the Vesting Instrument which “vested” ownership of oil and gas in Sarawak territory on Petronas and the cash payment of 5% made to the State since 1976, Petronas does not have to pay any other taxes, such as SST, to the State Government,

The determination of these questions would decide if the vesting of petroleum under the PDA was constitutional or null and void, and Petronas’ liability to pay SST to Sarawak Government.

=========================

Begitulah hendaknya apabila berbicara soal membawa ke mahkamah akan sesuatu yang sebenarnya hak kita tetapi penyewa yang “besar kepala” sudah tamak akan segalanya.  Buatlah apa yang terbaik untuk mendapatkan semula hak kita yang terhakis.  Jika dahulu pemimpin kita mungkin terlalu baik pandangannya namun sejajar dengan waktu sikap tamak akan terus menyelimuti ragam manusia.  

Teringat kata-kata pemimpin tersohor Sarawak, Mendiang Tun Jugah pernah berkata; Anang Malaysia sebaka tebu, manis di pun, tabar di ujung.

Semoga dipermudahkan segala urusan Kerajaan Sarawak dan kami memohon rakyat Sarawak tanpa mengira kaum, agama dan fahaman politik untuk SEHATI SEJIWA mendokong perjuangan hak kita ini.  Kalau punya kelapangan, BUKTIKAN SOKONGAN ANDA dengan bertandang mengikuti kes ini pada hari pendengaran.  

KITA AKAN BERJUANG UNTUK MENUNTUT HAK KITA!!

#IAMSARAWAKIAN

#SARAWAKFIRST