President Director of PT Harapan Sinar Abadi, Henny Victoria, accompanied by her attorney, Turseno, after the judicial review hearing of the Law on General Provisions and Procedure of Taxation (KUP) and Law on Value Added Tax on Goods and Services and Sales Tax on Luxury Goods (PPNBM), Tuesday/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

President Director of PT Harapan Sinar Abadi Henny Victoria revised the petition of material review on sanction for tardy tax payment as stated in Law No. 28/2007 on the Third Amendment of Law No. 6/1983 on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP Law) and Article 9 paragraph (9) of Law No. 42/2009 on the Third Amendment of Law No. 8/1983 on the Value Added Tax on Goods and Services and Sales Tax on Luxury Goods (PPNBM Law). The second hearing of case No. 10/PUU-XIV/2018 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (6/3) afternoon.

In the hearing, Henny explained that she had revised the argument of the petition in accordance with the advice from the panel of justices in the previous session. She explained that the state has eliminated her rights by the enactment of Article 9 paragraph (2a) and Article 13 of the KUP Law and Article 9 paragraph (9) of the PPNBM Law. As a taxpayer, she was given three months to credit or apply for a refund of overpaid tax, while the state has five years to track taxpayer obligations that have not been met. In addition, she explained that Article 13 paragraph (3) letter c of the KUP Law reduces the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights due to the inclusion of 100% fine. "It should be abolished because of VAT that we have paid," she explained before the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna accompanied by Constitutional Court Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Saldi Isra.

Turseno, the Petitioner\'s attorney, also added that the total tax to be paid to the state treasury is exorbitant. "The total tax to be paid to the state treasury is over Rp21,500,000. According to us, it is fitting that PT ABC as taxpayer is only required to pay underpaid tax amounting to Rp1.000.000," he explained.

The Petitioner argues the three articles are detrimental to the company of health equipment procurement that she leads. She considers the article has caused the Petitioner to suffer harm and injustice. Article 9 paragraph (2a) of the KUP Law regulates the sanction for tardy payment of income tax. Whereas Article 13 of the KUP Law stipulates the authority of the Directorate General of Taxes within a period of 5 years to stipulate underpaid tax and its fine. Meanwhile, Article 9 paragraph (9) of the PPNBM Law regulates the period after 3 months for overpaid tax. 

According to the Petitioner, these three provisions have eliminated the Petitioner\'s right to demand the re-submission of tax overpayment. Meanwhile, the state may demand payment of underpaid tax. The Petitioner’s tardy tax payment should provide benefits to the state on the Petitioner’s right that has not been paid to the state treasury. I would be more appropriate if the taxpayer is subject to a fine for this tardiness, for example credited for more than 1 year (not only 3 months). Administrative sanction of 1% (one percent) per month calculated from the due date of one year of invoice submitted up to the date of filing and part of the month shall be fully calculated as 1 (one) month, maximum 24 months. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)