Representing the Government Serepina reading its statement in the Tax Court judicial review hearing, on Wednesday (15/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The regulation on appeal deadline in tax court has given fair and sufficient time for taxpayers. This provision has been understood and followed by most taxpayers who appeal to the tax court. This was conveyed by the Head of the Legal Aid Bureau of the Ministry of Finance Tio Serepina Siahaan in the third hearing of the review of Article 1 number 12 and Article 35 paragraph (2) of Law No.14/2002 on Tax Court (Tax Court Law) on the deadline of appeal. The hearing of case No. 78/PUU-XV/2017 is filed by the President Director of PT Autoliv Indonesia Junius M.S. Tampubolon was held at the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (15/11).

In her statement representing the Government, Serepina said the Tax Court Law has set the deadline for appeal 3 months after the reception date, counted since the postal stamp of delivery. She added that the duration does not bind the Petitioner as the appellant to appeal. In addition, Serepina explained that the verdict of a tax court single judge states that the Petitioner’s appeal was formally rejected, as the Petitioner could not submit the reason for his claim that he had suffered a specific loss due to the enactment of the a quo provision.

"Therefore, the losses argued by the Petitioner are not caused by the enactment of the a quo provision, but due to the Petitioner\'s own negligence, who had not filed a lawsuit within 3 months, as stipulated in Article 35 paragraph (2) of the Tax Court Law. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the losses suffered by the Petitioner and the enactment of the a quo provision, "he explained.

According to Serepina, the delay in delivery and the absence of court control has the potential to create legal uncertainty and there are many events that can be used as reference by the recipient as the reception date of the decision. This certainly does not provide legal certainty for the parties. The choice of the stamp date as the reception date of the decision is also be based on the consideration that PT Pos as the delivery agent shall be obliged to immediately post [the decision letter] according to the postal stamp, so there shall be no delay of delivery except in case of emergency.

However, Serepina continued, lawmakers realized the system still has weaknesses because in reality mails sent by the postal service are not always received on the same day. Therefore, in order to compensate for the loss of time, lawmakers provide a considerable amount of time, that is three months, for an appeal or review, which is also calculated from the date the letter was sent by the tax court, not the reception date of the application by the tax court for the appeal. "With the same norm, lawmakers have applied the principle of equality for all parties," she said.

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)