The administrative lawsuit in case number PUT-006999.99/2024/PP/M.VB Year 2025 serves as a crucial precedent regarding the formal limits of a Taxpayer's rights in pursuing non-litigation legal remedies post-litigation. The core of the dispute focuses on the legality of the Director General of Taxes' Letter, which returned the application for the cancellation of an incorrect tax assessment on behalf of PRD, where the Plaintiff alleged a defect in attribution authority in the issuance of the VAT Underpayment Assessment (SKPKB). The Plaintiff argued that the internal mandate based on KEP-206/PJ/2021 lacked outward binding legal force, thus the tax assessment was considered nietig or void by law because it was issued by an unauthorized official.
The legal conflict intensified as the Defendant (Directorate General of Taxes) maintained the argument that an application for cancellation based on Article 36 Paragraph (1) Letter b of the KUP Law cumulatively requires that the requested tax assessment is not currently or has never been filed for an objection. During the trial, it was revealed that the Plaintiff had previously pursued the objection channel for the same SKPKB, and an Objection Decision had been issued rejecting the application. The Plaintiff attempted to bypass the formal restrictions of PMK Number 8/PMK.03/2013 by prioritizing the issue of the absolute competence of the official issuing the SKP, which they claimed could not be limited by standard administrative procedures.
The Board of Judges, in its legal considerations, emphasized that the Indonesian tax legal system adheres to the principle of strict legal certainty through the separation of legal remedy channels. The exercise of the right to object (Article 25 KUP Law) and the right to request cancellation (Article 36 KUP Law) are mutually exclusive for the same object to avoid conflicting decisions. The Board also provided legitimacy for the practice of mandates and delegation of authority from the Director General of Taxes to the Head of the Tax Office (KPP) as part of the smooth administration of government in accordance with the Law on Government Administration.
The resolution of this case resulted in the rejection of the Plaintiff's entire lawsuit. This decision affirms that the argument of authority defect cannot be used as an entry point to ignore the formal requirements stipulated by law, especially if the Taxpayer has previously chosen the objection litigation path. The implication for Taxpayers is the importance of strategic legal mapping from the beginning of the audit; choosing the objection path means consciously closing the opportunity for administrative correction through the Article 36 KUP Law mechanism in the future.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id