The legal counsel for the petition for judicial review of the Law on the Harmonization of Tax Regulations, Timbul Siahaan, presented the revised petition before the panel of Constitutional Justices on Friday (02/06/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court resumed the judicial review hearing of Law Number 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP), as amended several times, most recently by Law Number 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Tax Regulations (UU HPP), on Friday (02/06/2026) in the Court’s panel courtroom.

The revised petition in Petition Number 17/PUU-XXIV/2026 was presented by the Petitioners’ legal counsel, Timbul Siahaan, in a hearing chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani.

During the hearing, Timbul explained that the revisions to the posita section now include an explanation of the reasons for reviewing Article 36 paragraph (2) of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures Law (UU KUP). He emphasized that the Petitioners are not challenging a Minister of Finance Regulation, but merely referencing it as a basis for interpreting Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 36 paragraph (2) of the UU KUP.

“We are not challenging the Minister of Finance Regulation, as it is only elaborated to interpret the intent of Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 36 paragraph (2) of the UU KUP,” he explained.

In addition, Timbul stated that the provisions being challenged are Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 36 paragraph (2) of the UU KUP. The judicial review petition was filed by the tax liable party, PT Simac Indonesia, which in the proceedings is represented by Domastor Ginting as the liquidator. “Domastor Ginting, as the liquidator, has represented the Petitioner,” Timbul affirmed.

Read also:

PT SIMAC Indonesia Seeks Declaration of Incorrect Tax Assessment Letter Phrase as Unconstitutional

Previously, PT SIMAC Indonesia (in liquidation) argued that there is legal uncertainty in tax law enforcement due to what it considers a very limited legal basis, particularly concerning applications for the cancellation of Underpaid Tax Assessment Letters (SKPKB). According to the Petitioner, SKPKB issued under the UU KUP and the Income Tax/Value Added Tax laws should be subject to applications for cancellation of incorrect tax assessment letters, both on formal and material grounds.

The Petitioner explained that formal grounds relate to the issuance of SKPKB that does not comply with the provisions of the UU KUP, while material grounds relate to the substance of tax calculations. Such cancellation requests should remain permissible as long as the grounds submitted have not been examined through the objection mechanism as regulated under Article 25 of the UU KUP or do not violate the principle of ne bis in idem.

Furthermore, the Petitioner asserted that applications for cancellation of tax assessment letters should not be precluded even if the taxpayer has submitted a request for a reduction of administrative sanctions as referred to in Article 36 paragraph (1) letter a of the UU KUP, or if more than three months have passed since the decision on such objection or reduction was issued.

Moreover, the Petitioner argued that the phrase “incorrect tax assessment letter” in Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the UU KUP is contrary to the principle of legal certainty as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) and the principle of the rule of law under Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945). The phrase is considered to create uncertainty due to its narrow interpretation, thereby limiting the legal basis for filing cancellation requests even when such tax assessment letters are issued in violation of formal provisions of tax legislation. (*)

Author             : Utami Argawati

Editor              : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR                   : Andhini S.F.

Translator       : N. Valentino Rahadityo/Agusweka PS

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 prevails.

---