Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti along with other attorneys when delivering the principal points of the revision of the petition for judicial review of the Tax Court Law on Monday (30/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing of the judicial review of Article 1 number 12 and Article 35 paragraph (2) of Law No. 14/2002 on Tax Court (Tax Court Law) related to deadline of appeal. The hearing for case No. 78/PUU-XV/2017 that was filed by the President Director of PT Autoliv Indonesia Junius M.S. Tampubolon was held at the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (30/10).

In the petition revision hearing, the Petitioner through his legal counsel Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti submitted an petition revision on the legal standing and the argument of the petition on the enactment of the a quo articles. According to the Petitioner, the a quo articles have caused legal uncertainty for the Petitioner. To that end, the Petitioner requested that the Court provide a reasonable interpretation of the phrase "reception date" in the a quo law.

"To further realize the normative circumstances concerning the certainty of the date determination, the Petitioner submits a reasonable interpretation of the a quo articles as long as the phrase \'reception date\' of the 3 month period referred to is [interpreted as] \'being on the same date as the reception date of the decision compared to the next 3 months,\' " Bima explained before Constitutional Court Manahan M.P. Sitompul who presided over the hearing accompanied by Constitutional Justices Maria Farida Indrati 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. The Petitioner claims that the a quo articles have caused 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. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)