Lawsuit Dismissed! Is an STP Signed by the Head of Tax Office on Behalf of the Director General Legally Valid?

Legal Dispute: Formal Validity of STP Mandates and Audit Durations (PT WA)

The legal dispute between PT WA and the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) centered on the formal validity of a Tax Collection Letter (STP) signed by the Head of the Tax Office (KPP) on behalf of the Director General of Taxes. PT WA argued that the authority to issue an STP is an attribution power exclusively held by the Director General of Taxes pursuant to Article 14 Paragraph (1) of the KUP Law; thus, delegating such authority without explicit statutory basis was deemed legally flawed. Beyond the authority issue, the Plaintiff also challenged the audit procedure which exceeded the six-month period stipulated in PMK No. 184/PMK.03/2015, claiming it rendered the resulting legal product void.

Defendant's Argument: Mandates under the Government Administration Law

Conversely, the Defendant (DGT) maintained the validity of Decision KEP-03742, arguing that the delegation of authority to the Head of KPP was executed as a "mandate" through KEP-146/PJ/2018. Citing Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, a mandate is a standard practice in governance where final responsibility remains with the mandator. The Defendant emphasized that no legal provision mandates the cancellation of an STP solely due to the expiration of the audit testing period, noting that Article 36 Paragraph (1) Letter D of the KUP Law only regulates the cancellation of Tax Assessment Letters (SKP), not STPs.

Judicial Opinion: Functional Feasibility and Administrative Stability

The Board of Judges, in its legal consideration, aligned with the Defendant’s position. The Judges ruled that functionally, it is impossible for the Director General of Taxes to personally execute all administrative duties, making the mandate mechanism via KEP-146/PJ/2018 a legitimate step to address technical gaps in accordance with the General Principles of Good Governance. Regarding the audit timeframe, the Board held that while administrative delays occurred, they did not automatically invalidate the substance of the tax claim within the STP.

Conclusion: Strengthening the Legal Standing of DGT Mandates

Consequently, the Plaintiff's request for STP cancellation under Article 36 Paragraph (1) Letter C of the KUP Law was entirely rejected. This decision reaffirms the legal strength of the DGT's internal mandate for national tax collection.