The Singapore High Court has dismissed an appeal by THM International Import & Export Pte Ltd (THM), reinforcing that factual determinations by the Goods and Services Tax Board of Review (Board) generally fall outside the scope of judicial appeal. The ruling underscores the strict jurisdictional boundaries established under Section 54 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act).
Case Background:
THM appealed a 2023 Board decision (GHY v The Comptroller of GST [2023] SGGST 1) that denied its input tax refund claims. The Board had upheld the Comptroller’s determination that no actual supply of goods occurred – the foundational basis for THM’s claims. THM contested this finding on three grounds:
- Alleged improper retrospective application of anti-fraud GST provisions.
- Erroneous assessment of evidence (direct vs. circumstantial).
- Misapplication of the burden of proof, arguing Section 108 of the Evidence Act 1893 absolved it from proving facts beyond its knowledge.
The Comptroller’s Position:
The Comptroller maintained the Board correctly found no supply existed – a pure finding of fact. It argued Section 108 EA did not apply, as THM could have discovered key information (e.g., identities of missing parties, goods’ origin) through due diligence. THM failed to discharge its statutory burden under Section 52(3) GST Act to prove the Comptroller’s determination erroneous.
High Court’s Ruling ([2024] SGGST 1):
Justice Chua Lee Ming dismissed THM’s appeal entirely, emphasizing jurisdictional limits:
- Finality of Facts: Section 54(1) GST Act makes Board decisions “final,” with appeals permitted only on “any question of law or of mixed law and fact” (Section 54(2)). Appeals on pure questions of fact are barred.
- THM’s Arguments Were Factual: The Court found THM’s grounds fundamentally attacked the Board’s factual assessment (existence of goods, evidence weight, burden discharge). This was “an appeal on fact disguised as an appeal of law or mixed law and fact.”
- Limited Exception Inapplicable: The recognized exception – intervention if a factual finding is one “no reasonable body… could have reached” (Comptroller v Dynamac [2022] SGHC 61) – did not apply. The Board’s inference of non-supply from evidence gaps (e.g., untraceable goods/suppliers) was a legitimate factual finding.
- Burden of Proof Clarified: Section 108 EA requires a party to prove facts especially within its knowledge. It does not excuse a party from proving facts simply because they are unknown. The burden remained on THM under Section 52(3) GST Act. The Court rejected THM’s claim of an “insurmountable burden,” noting the goods’ source and transaction details were within THM’s knowledge, not the Comptroller’s.
- Evidential Burden Shifting: The Court agreed with the Board’s process: THM met its initial evidential burden for prima facie genuineness; the Comptroller then cast sufficient doubt via red flags; the burden shifted back, and THM failed to rebut this doubt, thus failing its ultimate legal burden.
This ruling solidifies the principle that factual findings by the GST Board are highly protected from appeal. Taxpayers challenging input tax denials must focus on identifiable errors of law or mixed law/fact. Critically, it reaffirms the heavy burden on claimants to substantiate the reality of supplies and transactions, including conducting thorough due diligence on suppliers and goods provenance. Reliance on Section 108 EA to avoid proving essential facts, particularly those potentially discoverable through diligence, is unlikely to succeed.
Source: THM International Import & Export Pte Ltd v Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax [2024] SGGST 1, 5 April 2024.