PT ASD submitted an application for the reduction or cancellation of a Tax Assessment Letter (SKP) deemed incorrect pursuant to Article 36 of the KUP Law. However, the DGT did not process the application and issued a file return letter Number S-1148/WPJ.01/2024. The reason was that the attached Specific Power of Attorney was not accompanied by documents proving that the attorney possessed specific competency in taxation aspects, as required by Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the KUP Law and its implementing regulations. Unwilling to accept the return, PT Anugerah Sawit Doi filed a lawsuit to the Tax Court, arguing that the appointment of the proxy was valid under Government Regulation (PP) 50 of 2022 and that the DGT should have issued a material decision, not an administrative one.
This legal battle brings together two viewpoints. The Taxpayer argued that government regulations regarding the appointment of "other parties" as proxies do not explicitly mandate the attachment of competency documents, thus the DGT's action of returning the file was considered an abuse of authority that obstructed their right to demand the cancellation of the SKP. On the other hand, the DGT maintained that proxy competency is an absolute requirement under the KUP Law. Without attached documents (certificates/degrees), the DGT has no basis to verify the legality of the proxy. Therefore, in accordance with the procedures in PMK-8/2013, an application that is formally defective must be returned for correction, not decided upon materially.
The Tax Court Panel of Judges ruled in favor of the DGT. In their considerations, the Judges emphasized that the obligation to possess competency (Article 32 KUP Law) and the obligation to prove it (attaching documents per PMK 229) are an inseparable unity. The DGT's action of returning the application was deemed legally correct and actually protected the Taxpayer's rights. By having it returned, the Taxpayer still has the opportunity ("quota") to resubmit a complete application. Conversely, if the DGT had forced the issuance of a rejection decision, the Taxpayer would have lost that legal opportunity.
This decision sends a strong signal to Taxpayers and tax consultants: do not trifle with administration. Negligence in attaching a single certification document can cause dispute resolutions to be delayed for months, or even years if the Taxpayer chooses the wrong litigation path. The best strategy when facing a file return letter is to immediately complete the deficiencies and resubmit, rather than fighting it in court unless there is a very strong legal basis.
Formal disputes like this can actually be avoided with strict due diligence prior to document submission. Taxpayers must ensure that every appointed proxy is not only academically competent but also capable of proving it administratively according to applicable regulatory standards. In tax law, material truth can only be championed if formal truth has been fully satisfied.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here.
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id