The ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation, Thursday (3/21/2024). Photo by MKRI/Teguh.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A petition by entrepreneur Puguh Suseno on the judicial review of Article 39 paragraph (1) letters d and i of Law No. 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP Law) was declared inadmissible. The verdict was delivered by Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the ruling hearing for Decision No. 30/PUU-XXII/2024 on Thursday, March 21, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

Delivering the Court’s legal opinions, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh stated that the Petitioner had misinterpreted the a quo norm, which reads, “does not pay the tax that has been withheld or collected,” while the Petitioner had quoted “so that it results in the loss for state revenues shall be subjected to imprisonment of at least 6 (six) months and no longer than 6 (six) years and shall be subjected to a fine of at least 2 (two) times of the amount of tax payable that is not paid or underpaid and no more than 4 (four) times of the amount of tax payable that is not paid or underpaid.” The sentence is standalone under letter a to i in Article 39 paragraph (1) of the KUP Law, thus it encompasses all acts regulated in the norms set forth in letters a through i.

“Therefore, the Petitioner had misread and misinterpreted the norms, thus making the petition vague or unclear. As such, the Petitioner’s vague and unclear argument has resulted in the petition not meeting the formal requirement of a petition as stipulated in Article 10 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the procedural law for judicial review cases,” Justice Foekh stressed.

Also read:

Taxpayer Challenges Provision on Criminal Sanctions

Taxpayer Harmed by Provision on Criminal Sanctions

Article 39 paragraph (1) letters d and i of the KUP Law reads, “Anyone who deliberately: d. delivers a Tax Return and/ or information whose content is incorrect or incomplete; i. does not pay the tax that has been withheld or collected so that it results in the loss for state revenues shall be subjected to imprisonment of at least 6 (six) months and no longer than 6 (six) years and shall be subjected to a fine of at least 2 (two) times of the amount of tax payable that is not paid or underpaid and no more than 4 (four) times of the amount of tax payable that is not paid or underpaid.”

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, February 28, the Petitioner through legal counsel Muhammad Ardilangga conveyed the petition. He asserted that the article is in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He believed it did not firmly regulate sanctions on taxpayers who do not deliver a tax return or who delivers incorrect information. In other words, it only emphasizes the deliberate action that is subject to sanction, but does not regulate the way to prove it. In addition, the lower and upper limit of the sanction and fine has led to ambiguity of its implementation by the law enforcement.

“The Petitioner appeals to the Court to declare Article 39 paragraph (1) letters d and i of Law No. 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as ‘does not deliver the tax that has been withheld or collected so that it results in the loss for state revenues shall be subjected to imprisonment of at least 6 (six) months and no longer than 6 (six) years and to a fine of at least 2 (two) times of the amount of tax payable that is not paid or underpaid,’” said legal counsel Aditia Krise Tri Yuwanto reading the petitum before Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair), M. Guntur Hamzah, and Ridwan Mansyur.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fauzan F.
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.

---