Formal provisions in tax procedural law are absolute and non-negotiable, as illustrated in the dispute between PT. FIP against the Directorate General of Taxation. The Judge issued a "Not Acceptable" (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard) decision due to a fundamental formal defect regarding the legal capacity of the appeal letter signatory.
The core conflict began when the Appeal Letter was signed by Mr. TS, who claimed to be the Director of PT. FIP on July 9, 2025. The Respondent (DGT) questioned this legality during the trial. The Taxpayer argued that the signatory was a valid manager during the 2022 Tax Year—the period when the material dispute occurred—and thus was considered to have the right to represent the company.
However, legal facts revealed through the Notarial Deed showed a different reality. Since July 7, 2023, through a Circular Resolution of Shareholders, Mr. TS had relinquished all his shares and no longer held a management position. The Single Judge emphasized that the validity of management must be reviewed at the time the Appeal Letter is created and submitted, not at the time of the disputed tax period.
The legal resolution in this case provides a strong message for litigation practitioners. The Single Judge ruled that because the signatory was not an authorized manager at the time of the appeal submission, the formal requirements of Article 37 paragraph (1) of the Tax Court Law were not met. Consequently, the material merits of the dispute were no longer considered by the court as the application failed at the formal examination stage.
In conclusion, every corporation must synchronize the latest management data between the Deed of Amendment and tax administration before pursuing legal action. Negligence in verifying the legal capacity of management will result in the loss of the Taxpayer's right to obtain material justice in the Tax Court.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id