Chief Justice Suhartoyo and the other eight constitutional justices presiding over the ruling hearing of the Law on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation, Friday (3/21/2025). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed 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 decision was handed down at a ruling hearing for case No. 168/PUU-XXII/2024 on Friday, March 21, 2025. The petition was filed by Surianingsih, a taxpaying citizen who felt disadvantaged by the provisions. “[The Court] dismissed the Petitioner’s petition,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict.

In its legal consideration, delivered by Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, the Court argued that despite the petition having followed the format specified under Article 31 paragraph (1) and Article 10 paragraph (2) letters a and b of Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021, its substance was unclear.

The Petitioner proposed that the deadline for the delay of tax underpayment assessment (SKPKB) or tax collection notice (STP) refer to the objection mechanism under Article 27 paragraph (5) of Law No. 28 of 2007 and the appeal mechanism under Article 27 of Law No. 28 of 2007. However, the Court found that the petition’s petitums were not in line with her posita, making its substance unclear.

“Such discrepancy between posita and petitums made the Petitioner’s petition unclear, lack strong legal basis, and irrelevant,” said Justice Guntur.

The Court also highlighted the change in petitums. The Petitioner first requested the review of Article 43 paragraph (1) of Law No. 14 of 2002, but revised it and added Article 43 paragraphs (2), (3), and (4). However, the Court asserted, the Petitioner did not explain clearly the contradiction between the norms being petitioned and the provisions in the Constitution, as specified under Article 10 paragraph (2) letter b of PMK No. 2 of 2021.

Also read:

Discrimination in Tax Debt Payment Term Challenge

Petitioner of Tax Debt Payment Term Revises Petition

In the petition, the Petitioner objected to the provisions in the Laws on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP Law) and the Tax Court, which she believed did not provide legal certainty for taxpayers who are taking legal actions. She argued the provisions have led to discrimination where taxpayers may file an objection and appeal to request for tax payment delay until one month after a decision is handed down, but there is no such leniency for those who request for tax cancelation and lawsuit.

She believed the provisions were against the legal certainty guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and the principle of the rule of law under Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. She 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 an objection or appeal.

The Petitioner requested the Court to grant the entirety of the petition and “declare the phrase ‘reducing or canceling the incorrect tax assessment’ in Article 36 paragraph (1) letter c of Law No. 28 of 2007 unconstitutional and not legally binding if not be interpreted as “the taxpayer have the right to the delay of payment of overdue tax for one month after a decision is handed down.”

“Based on the aforementioned legal consideration, although the Court had the authority to adjudicate the Petitioner’s petition, since the petition is obscure, as referred to under Article 74 of PMK No. 2 of 2021, the Court did not consider the legal standing and the petition’s merit any further,” Justice Guntur emphasized.

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.

---