COMMERSOL COMMODITIES PTE. LTD. v THE COMPTROLLER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Facts

Commersol Commodities Pte Ltd disagreed with additional goods and services tax assessed by the Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax under s 45 of the GST Act for three quarters: $33,163.60 for the quarter ended 31 December 2015, $85,526.59 for the quarter ended 31 March 2016 and $5,314.70 for the quarter ended 30 June 2016. The assessments were raised in 2020 and 2021, each stating that any objection had to be made within thirty days. Commersol obtained an extension to 11 February 2021 but did not respond by then.

After the Comptroller appointed OCBC Bank as Commersol's agent on 27 September 2021 to recover the taxes, Commersol objected and asked for a review under s 49. On 29 October 2024 the Comptroller made a final decision to maintain the assessments. Commersol said in emails in April, May and June 2025 that it would appeal to the GST Board of Review, but it never did. The Comptroller served a statutory demand and on 7 July 2025 began winding-up proceedings in HC/CWU 246/2025. On 12 August 2025 Commersol filed Originating Application No 859 of 2025 for permission to seek quashing, mandatory and prohibiting orders; the winding-up was stayed by agreement pending this application.

Issues

1. Whether Commersol had exhausted its statutory rights of appeal as O 24 r 2(2) of the ROC 2021 requires.
2. Whether the GST Board of Review could hear complaints about the Comptroller's decision-making process, not only disagreements on the merits.
3. Whether the interests of justice warranted permitting judicial review despite the failure to appeal.

Holding

The court dismissed the originating application and refused permission to apply for judicial review, because Commersol had not pursued its right of appeal to the GST Board of Review under s 51 of the GST Act. Commersol was ordered to pay the Comptroller's costs, including the costs of its application for its director to represent it.

Reasoning

O 24 r 2(2) of the ROC 2021 bars an application for a prerogative order before the applicant has exhausted any right of appeal or other statutory remedy. The Comptroller's decision of 29 October 2024 maintaining the assessments was a decision under s 49 that could be appealed under s 51, and Commersol knew of that right.

The court rejected the argument that the Board could deal only with disagreements on the merits and not with claims of a wrong legal test, failure to consider facts or procedural unfairness. Section 51 covers any disagreement with the Comptroller's decision on review. If statutory appeals did not cover judicial review grounds, the exhaustion rule would be meaningless, since any applicant could avoid it by framing its complaint that way. Treating statutory remedies as full alternatives also fits the principle that judicial review is a remedy of last resort, as reflected in Goh Seng Heng v Official Assignee [2025] SGHC 237 and Re The Online Citizen Pte Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1005.

Although O 3 r 2(1) gives the court discretion to depart from imperative rules in the interests of justice, there was nothing exceptional here. Commersol's only reason for not appealing had been rejected, its argument appeared to be an afterthought, and it filed more than 9 months after the decision, seemingly prompted by the winding-up proceedings. The court noted that the Board's Chairperson may still allow a late appeal under s 51(5).

From the judgment