Fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen has launched another bid to stymie the Inland Revenue Department's attempt to recover almost HK$350 million in profits tax from him. Chan (pictured) has filed a writ at the Court of First Instance, seeking a judicial review challenging the department's decision on June 22 to refuse to accept his notice of objection to two profits tax assessments and also 23 property tax assessments. The two profits tax assessments allegedly arose from the provision of personal services and involved HK$115.6 million for the 2005-06 financial year and HK$231.2 million for 2006-07. But Chan said that he did not carry on any trade or business or profession during those times. Chan is seeking an order to quash the department's decision and a mandatory order to force it to consider his notice of objection. Chan filed an application to the court in June in a bid to stop the department from asking a bank to hand over the sum from his account. On April 24, the department filed a claim at the District Court to recover the taxes from Chan. But he submitted in the writ on Friday that he was unaware of the claim until he watched the news on it on television. An assessor from the department issued the property tax assessment and profits tax assessment on January 22 and February 10. However, Chan alleged that the department only gave him notice on May 5. The department received Chan's notice of objection on June 4 but it refused to accept it as valid because it was not received within a month after the dates of issue. The department has adopted the incorrect view that time began to run from the date of issue of the assessment, regardless of whether Chan was given notice, the writ says. Moreover, the department had only sent the notices to law firm Kao, Lee & Yip, which represented Chan in at least two property investments in the past. Chan argued that notices were not sent to his last known addresses because the law firm informed Chan's lawyers at Richards Butler that they did not receive them. Also, the department was aware that none of the tax returns forms which the department claimed to have sent to Kao, Lee & Yip had been returned since July 2004. Furthermore, the department knew of other addresses to reach Chan, including one at Cyberport and his home on Gough Hill Road - where he was arrested on February 2 after the judgment in the late Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum's probate trial was handed down. The fung shui master alleged that the profits tax assessments were estimates made up from figures in the probate trial judgment of Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon. During the expensive court battle with Chinachem Charitable Foundation over who should inherit Wang's HK$100 billion fortune, Chan told the Court of First Instance that between 2005 and 2007, Wang gave him nearly HK$2.1 billion out of love. But lawyers for Wang's family said that Wang paid the money for services designed to prolong life. Lam did not find that the two payments represented Chan's business income, the writ says. Chan also alleged that the property tax assessments of HK$631,784 in relation to four properties jointly owned by him and his wife Tam Miu-ching or brother Bobby Chan Chun-hang were incorrect.