KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the government have successfully had their names struck out from an application for judicial review filed by Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir, related to an Inland Revenue Board (LHDN) additional tax assessment exceeding RM5mil.

Mukhriz, 60, filed the application on Dec 20 last year, naming the revenue CEO or director-general, Anwar in his capacity as the Finance Minister, and the government as the first, second, and third respondents, respectively.

In Thursday's (July 24) proceedings, Justice Amarjeet Singh allowed the application by Anwar and the government to strike out their names after hearing submissions from both parties.

However, Justice Amarjeet dismissed the application to strike out several paragraphs in Mukhriz's affidavit that mentioned Anwar and the government.

Senior Federal Counsel Irmawatie Daud appeared for the applicants, while lawyer Syed Afiq Syed Albakri represented Mukhriz.

On Jan 2, the High Court granted Mukhriz leave to challenge the tax notices by LHDN on grounds that there were issues needing exploration.

The court fixed Dec 16 to hear the application on its merits.

In Mukhriz's judicial review application, he seeks a court order to quash the first respondent's additional tax assessment notice for 2017, 2018, and 2019, amounting to RM5,020,707, on the grounds that the action is illegal and unreasonable.

The notices were for additional tax assessments for 2017 (RM2,558,875); 2018 (RM2,445,004); and 2019 (RM16,826).

He is also seeking a declaration that the decision to impose the penalty on him under Section 113(2) of the Income Tax Act 1967 is void and beyond legal authority.

Mukhriz contends that LHDN wrongfully considered his disposal of shares in Opcom Holdings Bhd and dividends received from M Ocean Capital Sdn Bhd as taxable income, although they were not taxable.

He is also seeking general and exemplary damages against the respondents.

Earlier in March, Anwar and the government applied to strike out their names, contending there was no need to list them as respondents in the judicial review.

They argued that naming them in the lawsuit was "clearly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process that is obviously unsustainable."