The legal dispute originated when the Respondent issued a rejection letter regarding a VAT objection filed by PT KJ, citing formal defects in the signatory's capacity. The core conflict centered on the interpretation of Article 32 of the Law on General Tax Provisions (KUP) regarding who is authorized to represent a Taxpayer in tax-related legal actions. The Respondent insisted that the signatory, Thopey Surendran Ganesh, was neither a director listed in the corporate deed nor an authorized proxy meeting the formal requirements of PMK Number 229/PMK.03/2014. Conversely, PT KJ argued substantively that the individual qualified as "management" under Article 32 Paragraph (4) of the KUP Law because he factually exercised authority over the company’s financial and operational policies.
The Board of Judges focused their legal considerations on proving the signatory's actual role in managing the company. Trial facts revealed that Thopey Surendran Ganesh held authority to sign checks and third-party contracts, and most crucially, the Respondent had previously accepted his signature on VAT Returns and during field audits. The Judges' resolution stated that the Respondent’s rejection violated the principles of legal certainty and consistency. If an individual's capacity is recognized for fulfilling tax obligations (signing tax returns), it must logically be recognized when exercising tax rights (signing objections).
This decision reaffirms that the definition of "management" is not strictly limited to names in a deed but includes anyone factually controlling the entity. The implication of this ruling serves as a vital precedent for Taxpayers to demand administrative consistency from tax authorities regarding corporate representation status.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id