Lawsuit Denied! Taxpayers Cannot Request SKP Cancellation After Pursuing an Objection Route

The Dispute Over Attribution of Authority: DGT vs PRD Regarding SKPKB Issuance

The dispute over the attribution of authority of the DGT in issuing SKPKB by the head of the tax office became the core of the legal debate between PRD and the Directorate General of Taxes. The plaintiff argued that the vat SKPKB for the February 2018 period was invalid because it was issued by an official who did not receive direct attribution from the kup law. However, the board of judges upheld the validity of the mandate through KEP-206/PJ/2021 and emphasized that the request for cancellation of incorrect tax assessments based on article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the kup law is closed if the taxpayer has already exercised their right to objection.

Conflict Origins and the "No Double Dipping" Principle

This conflict began when PRD filed a request for cancellation of the VAT SKPKB, which was considered to have a defect in authority. The Plaintiff referred to the Supreme Court Decision Number 4 P/HUM/2024 to emphasize that the DGT's internal delegation of authority cannot bind external parties. Conversely, the Defendant (DGT) stated that the request must be returned because the Plaintiff had already pursued the objection route for the same object. Based on Article 14 paragraph (2) letter a of PMK 8/2013, an Article 36 request can only be submitted if the taxpayer does not file an objection, to avoid legal overlap (no double dipping).

Judicial Consideration and Legal Certainty

The Board of Judges, in its legal considerations, rejected the Plaintiff's arguments regarding the defect of authority. The Judges argued that based on the Law on Government Administration, the Director General of Taxes has the authority to delegate his authority through a mandate mechanism to the Head of the Tax Office. Furthermore, the Board emphasized legal certainty that the objection procedure and the assessment cancellation procedure are two different paths and cannot be pursued simultaneously or sequentially for the same object if the objection path has been processed until a decision is issued.

Implications for Litigation Strategy

This decision confirms that the choice of legal path taken by the Taxpayer has final consequences. The implication for other Taxpayers is the importance of an appropriate litigation strategy from the beginning of the dispute; whether to pursue the objection path that tests the substance, or the cancellation path if there are clear administrative errors. Ignorance of this mutually exclusive principle can cause the Taxpayer's legal efforts to be declared formally failed in the Tax Court.

In conclusion, resistance to official authority in issuing SKP cannot stand alone if other formal procedures have been passed. This decision strengthens the position of the DGT's internal regulations within the framework of government administration as long as they do not conflict with higher laws.