Syawaluddin as legal counsel of the Petitioner (Right) following the judicial review hearing of the Law on Tax Court on Thursday (31/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) could not accept the material review of the provision on appeal deadline in tax court. The Decision No. 78/PUU-XV/2017 was read by Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the presence of the other constitutional justices on Thursday (31/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. "Declares the Petitioner\'s petition unacceptable," Justice Anwar said, reading the decision for the petition filed by the President Director of PT Autoliv Indonesia, Junius M.S. Tampubolon.

In his petition, the Petitioner reviewed Article 1 number 12 and Article 35 paragraph (2) of Law No.14/2002 on Tax Court (Tax Court Law) related to deadline of appeals. According to the Petitioner, the a quo articles had resulted in losses due to confusion regarding the calculation of the deadline. The Petitioner claimed that his appeal was not accepted as a result of different references in the calculation of the deadline, resulting in legal uncertainty for the Petitioner.

In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Court Justice M.P. Sitompul, the Court has reminded the Petitioner to submit the Articles of Association or bylaws (AD/ART) of PT Autoliv Indonesia. However, Justice Manahan added, until the proceedingsof the a quo hearing had ended, the Petitioner did not submit it. The Court could not ascertain who was actually authorized to represent PT Autoliv Indonesia either within or outside the court.

"The Petitioner, in accordance with the notarial deed, is the director, not president director or executive director, so based on the evidence the Court does not have confidence of who is legally entitled to act for and on behalf of PT Autoliv Indonesia, particularly within and outside the court," he explained.

Justice Manahan added that although the Petitioner is truly a company, the Petitioner could not prove that Junius Tulus Manota Tampubolon had the authority to represent PT Autoliv Indonesia to file the a quo petition. "Although the Court has the authority to hear the a quo petition, since the Petitioner does not have legal standing to file the a quo petition, the Court shall not consider the principal issue of the petition," said Justice Manahan. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)