An Administration lecturer of University of Indonesia Inayati as expert presented by the Petitioner delivering her expertise in the judicial review hearing of the Regional Taxes and Levies Law, Thursday (30/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Street Lighting Tax (PPJ) is a tax based on actual consumption, which is actually VAT (PPN), so PPJ must not exceed VAT, which is the original charge or the actual purpose of this tax. So harmonization and synchronization are required in the collection process. This was conveyed by an Administration lecturer of University of Indonesia Inayati in the judicial review of Law No. 28/2009 on Regional Taxes and Levies (PDRD Law). In a hearing held on Thursday (30/11), APINDO as the Petitioner presented Inayati as an Expert.

In her presentation, Inayati asserted that there is a concept that should not be violated in taxation: certainty in tax collection. It is also guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution. Certainty is important because in principle taxes are substantially forcible transfer of resources owned by the public, done by the state. In essence, taxes must be levied on a clear legal basis. Inayati saw contradiction interminis around PPJ. PPJ is street lighting tax, but there is also tax on the use of electricity, both self-generated or generated by other sources. "PPJ is a consumption-based tax. So there are options that the government can take on its imposition," said Inayati as Expert of Case No. 80/PUU-XV/2017.

In addition, according to Inayati, government should provide services and electricity as one of public goods. Thus, it is the Government\'s obligation to provide electricity for the community. Inayati added that in the VAT law electricity is categorized as a strategic good, so the state must provide it throughout Indonesia. "Thus, electricity supply becomes the responsibility of the state, although in reality it is not fully met," she said.

This condition forces the community to produce electricity for various needs, continued Inayati. For companies, generating electricity will add to the cost of production and this is a serious problem. And indeed, taxes are levied for the welfare of the people. However, ironically, corporate sacrifice is not assessed or appreciated by the government, by the imposition of street lighting tax on self-generated electricity.

State Service Functions

In this hearing, Jasin Tandiono and Ruhut Panagaran gave witness statements on the impact of PPJ for the company. In essence, the two witnesses are from a company that suffers from PPJ. "As per local regulations that implement PPJ, this impact indicates an ever-increasing value. The company keeps making non-PLN PPJ payments to the local government, and this PPJ continues to increase," Jasin said.

In the previous petition, the Petitioner considered that the enactment of the a quo law had caused legal uncertainty and keep the Petitioner from getting a fair protection in accordance with Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner claims that, in the case of its business, it should not be levied on street lighting tax. If it is, the tax should be limited to electricity originating from the state and used for non-production activities. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)