The Director General of Taxes (DGT) holds the attributive authority to issue Underpayment Tax Assessment Letters (SKPKB) under Article 13(1)(a) of the KUP Law, with operational implementation mandated to Heads of Tax Offices via KEP-206/PJ/2021. The dispute arose when the Plaintiff, Mr. P, attempted to cancel a VAT SKPKB valued at IDR 29,136,470 through the administrative route of Article 36(1)(b) of the KUP Law after his previous objection was rejected.
The Plaintiff argued the mandate was invalid based on Supreme Court Decision No. 4 P/HUM/2024 and the principle of legality. Conversely, the Defendant maintained that dual legal remedies are prohibited under PMK 8/2013 if the dispute's substance has already been reviewed in an objection process. This conflict tests the finality of administrative decisions and the limits of taxpayer maneuvers.
The Tax Court Judges affirmed that the delegation of authority from the DGT to the Head of the Tax Office constitutes a valid mandate under the Law on Government Administration, thus the SKPKB remains legally binding. Furthermore, the Court emphasized legal certainty, stating that Taxpayers cannot pursue an administrative cancellation if they have already exhausted the objection route for the same material substance.
This decision serves as a critical reminder for Taxpayers to be strategically selective in choosing legal remedies, as the administrative path under Article 36 cannot serve as a "backup" following a loss in material objection litigation. Choosing the wrong sequence of legal actions can lead to a total loss of the right to contest an assessment.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id