The dispute between PT SAP and the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) reaffirms that the lawsuit path based on Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the KUP Law possesses distinct legal characteristics compared to the appeal path. The primary focus of this dispute is the judicial review of the DGT's administrative decision to reject the cancellation of a tax assessment deemed incorrect by the Taxpayer. Procedurally, the Board of Judges emphasized that although Taxpayers have a facultative right to submit a second request before suing, failure to prove procedural errors or abuse of authority by the tax office will result in the dismissal of the lawsuit.
The core conflict began when PT SAP pursued a lawsuit to cancel a Tax Assessment Notice (SKP) which they claimed contained material substance errors regarding plasma costs. However, the Defendant (DGT) argued that the procedure followed was in accordance with regulations and that material substance should be tested through the objection mechanism. In its resolution, the Board of Judges opined that an Article 36 lawsuit is not an instrument to re-examine the dispute material as deeply as in an appeal, but rather a test of the rationality and legality of the decision-making process. This analysis shows that a Taxpayer's litigation strategy must be very careful in choosing the legal channel, as choosing the wrong path can close the opportunity for material evidence. In conclusion, strengthening arguments on the aspect of "obvious and clear incorrectness" is crucial in an Article 36 lawsuit.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id