---

Representing the Petitioner, Syawaludin as legal representative delivering the petition principal for the judicial review of Tax Court Law, Monday (16/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

President Director of PT Autoliv Indonesia Junius M.S. Tampubolon requested a review of Article 1 number 12 and Article 35 paragraph (2) of Law No. 14/2002 on Tax Court (Tax Court Law) related to appeal deadline. The hearing for case No. 78/PUU-XV/2017 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (16/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The preliminary hearing was chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul accompanied by Constitutional Court Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Aswanto.

The Petitioner who owns a car seatbelt manufacturing business argues that his constitutional rights are violated by the enactment of appeal deadline in the tax court as set forth in Article 1 number 12 and Article 35 paragraph (2) of the Tax Court Law.

Article 1 number 12 of the Tax Court Law

"Reception date is the postal stamp date, fax date, or in case of direct reception is the date when the letter, decision, or verdict is received directly."

Article 35 paragraph (2) of the Tax Court Law

"Appeal shall be filed within 3 (three) months since the reception date of the decision appealed, unless otherwise provided in the taxation legislation."

Through Syawaluddin as attorney, the Petitioner mentioned that he has the Decree of Directorate General of Taxes KEP-00261/KEB/WPJ.07/2017 dated March 9, 2017 on Objection of Taxpayer on Tax Overpayment Assessment Letter of Income Tax signed by the Head of the Jakarta Special Regional Directorate of Taxation (DGT). In this case, the Petitioner received the DGT Decree on March 14, 2017 as evidenced by the receipt of the DGT Decree. Against the letter, the Petitioner filed an appeal with the Tax Court with an appeal letter dated June 9, 2017. The letter was registered with the Tax Court Secretariat on June 12, 2017 and subsequently the court decided not to accept the appeal in Decision Letter No. Put-85603/PP/HT.1.15.2017 delivered on August 14, 2017. The judge\'s consideration on the verdict is that the appeal has passed the deadline under Article 1 number 12 of the Tax Court Law.

The Petitioner suffered losses due to ambiguity regarding the deadline. The Petitioner conveyed that his Tax Appeal Petition was not accepted as a result of different references in the calculation of the deadline resulting in legal uncertainty for the Petitioner.

"The ambiguity caused by the definition in Article 1 number 12 has led to legal uncertainty regarding the definition of \'reception date\' in the Tax Court Law and must be declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution especially Article 28D paragraph (1)," Susanto stressed.

In addition to the phrase "reception date" in Article 1 point 12 of the Tax Court Law, the Petitioner also claimed that there is also uncertainty about the definition of "3 months" in Article 35 paragraph (2) of the Tax Court Law. The Petitioner requested that the interpretation of the phrase "3 months" to realize the normative circumstances regarding the certainty of the deadline. The Petitioner proposed the appropriate interpretation of that article, where the phrase "3 months" is interpreted as 3 months or 90 days and the phrase "after reception date" is interpreted after the taxpayer receives the decision letter. Based on the Procedural Law of the General or Administrative Court, the term "reception date" is the date on which the document was received by the recipient. This can also be seen in the calculation of the deadline of appeal, cassation, or judicial review. Reception of documents in the judicial system is evidenced by a receipt that proves that the recipient has received the intended document on the date indicated on the receipt. "Based on that, the calculation of ‘reception date\' in the a quo article deviates from the rules of language (grammar), legal rules, and procedural law," explained Andriansyah, who is also the attorney, to the Panel of Justices.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul provided some advice for revision, including the affirmation of the Petitioner’s legal standing as executive director of a Limited Liability Company (PT) that is a legal entity with statute/bylaws. “Please show the Petitioner’s legal standing in the company’s statute, how far can he represent the company, and please elaborate that as stated in the company’s statut/bylaws,” said Justice Manahan.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams requested that the Petitioner strengthen the elaboration of constitutional impairment that he suffered due to the enactment of the a quo norm. “The background for the petition needs to be strengthened by explaining the things contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not against the Indonesian Language Dictionary (KBBI) and other articles,” advised Justice Wahiduddin.

Constitutional Justice Aswanto also recommended that the Petitioner strengthen the posita with a comprehensive explanation of his constitutional impairment. “Please elaborate on the posita, starting from the theory to the impairment suffered, [which is] the loss of appeal right due to the deadline specified in the a quo article. This is important so that the causa verba will show, between the norm being reviewed and the impairment,” said Justice Aswanto.

At the end of the hearing, Constitutional Justice Manahan stated that the Petitioner was given time to revise his petition until Monday, October 30, 2017 at 10.00 a.m. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---