The dispute began when PT MBK received a Defendant's Letter stating that their objection application could not be considered because it was deemed to have passed the three-month deadline pursuant to Article 25 paragraph (3) of the KUP Law. The Defendant insisted that the objection letter was only received long after the deadline expired, meaning formal requirements were not met. However, PT MBK filed a lawsuit arguing they had sent the letter on time, but a fatal error by the expedition service caused the letter to be returned to the sender without the company's management realizing it.
The core conflict lies in the interpretation of "Circumstances Beyond the Taxpayer's Control" (force majeure) as regulated in PMK Number 202/PMK.03/2015. The DGT argued that the return of the letter (kempos) received by someone at the Plaintiff's location should have prompted the Plaintiff to immediately resend the letter. Conversely, the Plaintiff proved through an internal investigation that the person who received the returned letter was not their employee, but an unaffiliated outsider, thus management never knew their objection letter failed to deliver until a check was conducted months later.
In its consideration, the Board of Judges prioritized the irrefutable legal facts in the form of an official Minutes of Meeting from PT Pos Indonesia acknowledging the courier's error. The Board assessed that once a Taxpayer has submitted documents to the post office on time and possesses a valid receipt, the Taxpayer's procedural obligations are fulfilled. Misdelivery by a third party (the post) is a variable outside the Taxpayer's control, thus meeting the criteria for administrative force majeure.
The implications of this decision are significant for tax practice, as it affirms that legal certainty should not be defeated by technical errors of third parties that are legally recognized. This ruling provides protection for Taxpayers against administrative rigidity (undue hardship) arising from the correspondence process. For other Taxpayers, this case serves as an important lesson to always document proof of delivery properly and conduct regular tracking of every important letter sent to tax authorities.
In conclusion, the Board of Judges annulled the Defendant's rejection letter and ordered that the Plaintiff's objection process proceed to be examined on its merits. This demonstrates that the Tax Court functions as the last bastion to correct administrative actions of tax authorities that ignore aspects of substantial justice.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id