The Petitioner’s Legal Counsel while attending a ruling hearing on Monday (7/15/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The phrase "laws and regulations" in Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court (Tax Court Law) is not a phrase used to accommodate the meaning of "taxes and other compelling levies". However, it emphasizes the legal basis that justices can use in deciding tax dispute cases, both in the Tax Court and the Supreme Court.

Thus was the Court's legal consideration read out by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra on the petition filed by PT Adora Bakti Bangsa, PT Central Java Makmur Jaya, PT Gan Wan Solo, and PT Juma Berlian Exim (Petitioners I-IV) at the ruling hearing on Monday, July 15, 2024.

"If the Court narrows the meaning of the phrase 'laws and regulations' to 'Laws, Provincial Regulations, or Regency/City Regulations' as requested, it will restrict the scope of justices in using the legal basis for deciding tax dispute cases," said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi on the examination of Article 78 of the Tax Court Law.

Furthermore, regarding the Petitioners' arguments in Case No. 33/PUU-XXII/2024, the Court stated that the phrase 'laws and regulations' in the provisions of Article 78 of the Tax Court Law has provided legal certainty in taxation. Thus, it does not contradict Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution. As such, according to the Court, Deputy Chief Saldi added that the Petitioners' arguments are not well-founded according to the law in its entirety.    

“[The Court] declares, rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo, delivering the verdict in the plenary courtroom alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

Also read:

Legal Bases of Tax Court Decisions Questioned

Petitioners of Tax Court Law Clarify Constitutional Impairment

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 for 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 in the tax court against a collection notice for the value-added tax on goods and services. In the decision and legal considerations, the judges stated that they rejected 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 was 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
Translators       : Putri Ratnasari/Yuniar Widiastuti/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---