Legal counsel Cuaca conveying the petition’s subject matter at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Law on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation, Monday (12/9/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 36 paragraph (1) letters b and c of Law No. 28 of 2007 on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP Law) and Article 43 paragraph (1) of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court. The case No. 168/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Surianingsih, a taxpaying citizen. The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Ridwan Mansyur.

The Petitioner argued that the articles petitioned did not provide legal certainty. She argued that her constitutional right had been violated as she was required to pay tax despite the fact that she is taking legal action by requesting the cancelation or reduction of the overdue tax.

She believes this uncertainty is against the legal certainty guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and the principle of the rule of law in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. She has also compared the provisions with Article 25 paragraphs (3a) and (7) and Article 27 paragraph (5) of Law No. 28 of 2007, which grant taxpayers the right to request delay of tax payment while filing objection or appeal.

At the hearing, the Petitioner revealed she had been discriminated as the objection or appeal would result in the delay of payment of overdue tax for one month after the decision is handed down. However, a request of tax debt cancelation and a lawsuit do not give the same leniency. As such, the taxpayer must pay the tax despite undergoing a legal process to challenge it.

The Petitioner argued that the articles being petitioned has led to legal uncertainty and could potentially discriminate between taxpayers who file an objection or appeal and those who request for tax cancelation or deduction. This, she stressed, is not in line with the main goal of obtaining legal certainty and justice.

She requested that the Court grant the petition in its entirety. She also appealed to the Court to declare the phrase “reducing or canceling the incorrect tax assessment” in Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2007 No. 85, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 4740) unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “reducing or canceling the incorrect tax assessment and on the tax assessment letter, the taxpayer is obliged to pay the accrued tax at least in the amount agreed by the taxpayer in the final discussion of the audit results, before the letter of reduction or cancelation is submitted, and the period of tax repayment as referred to in Article 9 paragraph (3) or paragraph (3a) for the amount of unpaid tax at the time of submission of the reduction or cancellation is suspended until 1 (one) month from the date of issuance of the decision letter of tax reduction or cancelation.”

In response, Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to elaborate the cause and effect of the loss she experienced. “Please elaborate more specifically, as there is a concrete case you’re involved in here. The concrete case would be the entry, then please explain five criteria of loss [and how you meet them],” she said.

The constitutional justices gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition. She is to submit the revised petition by Monday, December 23, 2024.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---