The Constitutional Court holds revision session on Act of Tax Court, Act of General Provisions and Tax Procedures, Act of the Supreme Court, and Act of Judicial Authority, on Wednesday (25/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. On the second session of Case Number 133/PUU-XIII/2015, Applicant Nizarman Aminuddin representing by his attorney delivers revision points.

In front of Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat, M. Said Bakhri as Applicant’s Attorney delivers that the Applicant has revised petition in accordance with Justice Panel’s input. One of the revision points is petition systematic revision. The Applicant has stated the content of provisions he sued. Moreover, he also revises petition demands (petitum).  

“As advised in previous session, we have added with the point ‘if Your Honor Justice Panel of the Constitutional Court has different opinion, we beg the fairest verdict,” said M. Said delivering petition demands.

The Applicant is the liquidator of PT. Textra Amspin who considers detrimental by Article II number 1 Act of General Provisions and Tax Procedures, Article 36 (4) and Article 89 (1) Act of Tax Court, Article 66 (1) Act of the Supreme Court, and Article 24 (2) Act of Judicial Authority. According to the Applicant, the Articles aforementioned have violated his rights to equality before the law and government. Moreover, he assesses that the Articles have removed his constitutional rights to recognition, protection, and fair legal certainty, as well as equality before the law.

Applicant’s argument is based on liquidation case of PT. Textra Amspin which he undertaken. As liquidated company, PT. Textra Amspin was burdened by underpayment tax amounting to fifty two billion four hundred eighty six million sixty eight thousand rupiahs. The tax is calculated based on taxable value (NJOP) of land which declared by Tax Office as an asset of PT. Textra Amspin.

The Applicant felt burdened by the tax because the land referred was not owned by the company, but it privately owned by the Applicant. He then filed legal attempt by filing lawsuit to Tax Court and appeal.

However, Applicant’s lawsuit was declared inadmissible because it didn’t fulfill the requirements as stipulated in Article 36 (4) Act of Tax Court. The Article requires that in terms of Appeal filed towards the amount of tax owed, Appeal shall only be able to be filed if the amount owed has been paid 50%. Therefore, the Applicant argues Article 36 (4) Act of Tax Court contrary to Article 1 (3), Article 27 (1), Article 28A, and Article 28H (1), and Article 28I (2) the 1945 Constitution. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/Prasetyo Adi N)