Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul chairing the judicial review hearing of Law on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations (HPP Law), Tuesday (3/22/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Tuesday, March 22, 2022 | 14:07 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations (HPP Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the on Tuesday, March 22, 2022. The Petitioner’s legal counsels, Taufik Himawan and Oktavia Sastray, appeared virtually before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

The Petitioner’s legal counsel conveyed that, overall, there was not much revision in the petition aside from the spelling of the Petitioner’s academic title, the revision from “Petitioners” to “Petitioner,” and the removal of the word “mengadili” (“to try”) in the petitum.

Also read: Entrepreneur Questions Clusters in HPP Law

Priyanto, an entrepreneur represented by a legal team of the Pro Humania office, filed the case No. 19/PUU-XX/2022 to challenge Article 4 points 1, 2, and 6; Chapter V; Article 13 paragraphs (4), (10), (11), and (15); Article 14 points 1, 2, and 3; as well as the Elucidation for those norms. Dian Prinoegroho argued that relating the Income Tax (PPh) cluster, Article 7 paragraph (3) in Article 3 point 1 of the HPP Law was against Article 22 letter d of the 1945 Constitution, while Article 17 paragraph (2) in Article 3 point 3 of the HPP Law was in violation of Article 22 letter g of the 1945 Constitution.

Meanwhile, relating the Value Added Tax (VAT/PPN), he added, Article 4A of the PPN Law and its Elucidation had been revised in Article 4 point 1 of the HPP Law where basic goods needed by the people—medical services, social services, and educational services—that used to be exempt from VAT are now subject to VAT.

The Petitioner believes that although Article 16B paragraph (1) letter a, letter j point 6 of the PPN Law in Article 4 point 6 of the HPP Law exempts educational services the 11% VAT, they should not be subjected to VAT because they are noble services and are not part of economic transactional activities. He also mentioned the right and freedom to education as stated in Article 28C paragraph (1) and Article 31 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioner also argued relating to the tax amnesty cluster that the provisions in Articles 5-12 in Chapter V of the Voluntary Disclosure of Taxpayers in the HPP Law constitute the tax amnesty program that the state runs through Law No. 11 of 2016 on Tax Amnesty.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 3/23/2022 09:58 WIB

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

---