Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra with Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Arsul Sani presiding over a material judicial review hearing of the Tax Court Law, Thursday (3/14/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 78 of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court for case No. 33/PUU-XXII/2024 on Thursday, March 14, 2024. The petition was filed by PT Adora Bakti Bangsa, PT Central Java Makmur Jaya, PT Gan Wan Solo, and PT Juma Berlian Exim (Petitioners I-IV). This petition revision hearing was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Arsul Sani.

Legal counsel Timbul Siahaan detailed the parts that had been revised. First, Petitioners II-IV has now become Petitioners I-III, with one of them backing out. The Petitioners have also elaborated the legal standing of the directors and executive directors to represent the legal entities in and out of court, with supporting documents.

“We have also affirmed the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment and the reasons for the petition by adding legal theories and practices of tax collection in European countries. The Petitioners have also explained the contradiction between the a quo article and the 1945 Constitution, which could potentially lead to legal uncertainty,” Siahaan said.

Also read: Legal Bases of Tax Court Decisions Questioned

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, February 29, the Petitioners revealed that they had pursued legal remedies in the Tax Court but feel that its decisions were unfair. In the petition, the Petitioners’ legal cases have been elaborated. For example, as a taxpaying legal entity, Petitioner I had filed a request of the erasure of administrative sanction and cancelation of tax collection notice, but it was rejected on the grounds of a Regulation of the Finance Minister. The tax court judges asserted that the rejection had been based on Article 78 of the Tax Court Law and that the regulation had been part of statutory laws and regulations.

Similarly, Petitioner IV had filed a lawsuit to the tax court against a collection notice of value added tax of goods and services. In the decision and legal considerations, the judges stated that they reject the lawsuit based on a decree of the Director-General of Taxation. These legal facts show that Petitioner IV had experienced legal uncertainty. He asserts that the tax court decision must be based on law, not regulations.

Therefore, the Petitioners’ petitum to the Court is for it to declare the phrase “statutory laws and regulations” in Article 78 of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “laws.”

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---