---

The judicial review of Law No. 6 of 1983 on the Law on the General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP), Thursday (3/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material review hearing of Law No. 6 of 1983 on the General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP) as amended by aw No. 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 6 of 1983 on the General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP) on Thursday, September 3, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom.

Presiding justice Chief Justice Anwar Usman informed participants that the hearing of case No. 41/PUU-XVIII/2020 had been scheduled to hear statements by the Petitioners’ experts and witnesses. “However, the Registrar’s Office informed [us] that the experts and witnesses’ written statements and CVs had only been received yesterday while at previous hearings [we’d informed] that written statements and CVs were to be submitted two days before the hearing,” he said.

The Petitioner’s attorney Heru Widodo responded, “We apologize for the technical error which compelled us to submit [the documents] the day before [the hearing]. However, suppose Your Honors had another consideration, we have prepared two experts.”

“Based on the justices’ deliberation, as we need to study the experts and witnesses’ written statements, [they] will be heard at the next hearing on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 11:00 WIB,” Justice Anwar said.

Also read:

Tax Debt on Insolvent Company Drives Petitioner to Challenge Law on Tax Provisions and Procedures  

Petitioner of Law on Tax Provisions and Procedures Revises Identity

House: Former Managers Must Be Accountable for Corporate Tax Debts 

The case No. 41/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Taufik Surya Dharma, a former superintendent of PT United Coal Indonesia (PT UCI), which was declared bankrupt by the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court in 2015. He challenges Article 2 paragraph (6) and Article 32 paragraph (2) of the KUP Law. He believes both articles were used by the South Jakarta Large Taxpayers Office One as a basis to collect taxes from PT UCI, which was personally charged to the Petitioner at the amount of Rp193,625,721,483 only because the company’s tax identification number (NPWP) of the bankrupt PT UCI had not been deleted while, in fact, the company had been declared bankrupt on a court decision that has permanent legal force and all bankruptcy assets have been settled by a curator. 

Writer: Utami A.

Editor: Nur R.

PR: Annisa Lestari

Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/4/2020 14:28 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---