The conflict began when PT AS Doi filed a Lawsuit against the Director General of Taxes' letter which returned their application under Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the KUP Law. The Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) refused to process the application on the grounds that formal requirements were not met, specifically that the Taxpayer only attached a photocopy of the Special Power of Attorney. On the other hand, the Taxpayer insisted that they had submitted the original Special Power of Attorney on the same day, but it was attached to a different application file (Objection Application). The Taxpayer felt that substantially, the DGT already held the original mandate, so the photocopy in this file should have been acceptable.
In its legal considerations, the Panel of Judges of the Tax Court rejected the "file substitution" logic proposed by the Taxpayer. The Judges adhered strictly to the provisions of Article 5 paragraph (3) of the Minister of Finance Regulation Number 211/PMK.03/2018, which explicitly requires the submission of the original Special Power of Attorney to the DGT employee handling the specific case. This ruling reinforces the principle that every tax application is a stand-alone administrative entity. The existence of the original document in a "neighboring" file does not automatically validate deficiencies in the file currently under review. The Judges assessed that the DGT's action to return the file was in accordance with the corridors of state administrative law.
The implication of this ruling is very clear: there is no room for compromise regarding formal requirements. Taxpayers must not assume that tax officers will perform cross-verification between files to check for document completeness. The administrative risk lies entirely with the Taxpayer. This rejection means the Taxpayer lost the opportunity to fight for their tax reduction through the Article 36 mechanism solely because they failed to meet one administrative requirement. This sets a precedent that in tax law, being "mathematically correct" means nothing if one is "procedurally incorrect."
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
th. A minor negligence in attaching the original Special Power of Attorney proved fatal and closed the door to justice for the Taxpayer.
The conflict began when PT AS Doi filed a Lawsuit against the Director General of Taxes' letter which returned their application under Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the KUP Law. The Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) refused to process the application on the grounds that formal requirements were not met, specifically that the Taxpayer only attached a photocopy of the Special Power of Attorney. On the other hand, the Taxpayer insisted that they had submitted the original Special Power of Attorney on the same day, but it was attached to a different application file (Objection Application). The Taxpayer felt that substantially, the DGT already held the original mandate, so the photocopy in this file should have been acceptable.
In its legal considerations, the Panel of Judges of the Tax Court rejected the "file substitution" logic proposed by the Taxpayer. The Judges adhered strictly to the provisions of Article 5 paragraph (3) of the Minister of Finance Regulation Number 211/PMK.03/2018, which explicitly requires the submission of the original Special Power of Attorney to the DGT employee handling the specific case. This ruling reinforces the principle that every tax application is a stand-alone administrative entity. The existence of the original document in a "neighboring" file does not automatically validate deficiencies in the file currently under review. The Judges assessed that the DGT's action to return the file was in accordance with the corridors of state administrative law.
The implication of this ruling is very clear: there is no room for compromise regarding formal requirements. Taxpayers must not assume that tax officers will perform cross-verification between files to check for document completeness. The administrative risk lies entirely with the Taxpayer. This rejection means the Taxpayer lost the opportunity to fight for their tax reduction through the Article 36 mechanism solely because they failed to meet one administrative requirement. This sets a precedent that in tax law, being "mathematically correct" means nothing if one is "procedurally incorrect."
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id