BabelCite

Good Mark Industrial Ltd v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 88/2012 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 21 March 2014.

1. 4 th and 5 th lines of paragraph 42, “I agree with the respondent (and disagree with the respondent)” should read “I agree with the respondent (and disagree with the applicant)”.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCAL 88/2012
Court
High Court CFI
Date21 Mar 2014
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 88/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCEEDINGS

NO 88 OF 2012

____________

BETWEEN
  GOOD MARK INDUSTRIAL LIMITED Applicant

and
  COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent
____________
Before: Hon Chung J in Court
Date of Hearing: 25 February 2014
Date of Supplemental Submissions: 21 March 2014
Date of Handing Down Judgment: 28 March 2014
Date of 2nd Corrigendum: 16 May 2014

___________________

2nd C O R R I G E N D U M

___________________

Please note the following corrigendum in the Judgment dated 28 March 2014:

1.4th and 5th lines of paragraph 42, “I agree with the respondent (and disagree with the respondent)” should read “I agree with the respondent (and disagree with the applicant)”.

Dated this 16th day of May 2014. 

   (Kan Cheuk Him)
  Clerk to Hon Chung J
Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Good Mark Industrial Ltd v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue
HCAL 88/2012
High Court CFI24 Jun 2014
Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 88/2012

Good Mark Industrial Ltd v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue
High Court CFI31 May 2013
Good Mark Industrial Ltd v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue
High Court CFI—
Good Mark Industrial Ltd v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue
High Court CFI21 Mar 2014
Good Mark Industrial Ltd v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue
High Court CFI21 Mar 2014
Good Mark Industrial Ltd v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue
High Court CFI24 Jun 2014