Second Request for Cancellation of Tax Assessment Letter (SKPKB) Exceeding 3 Months, Tax Court Rejects PT AKJ's Lawsuit for Reversal of the Second Request

The fatal consequences of administrative negligence once again surfaced in the dispute between PT AKJ and the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) regarding the issuance of a letter returning the taxpayer’s second request to cancel a Tax Underpayment Assessment (SKPKB).

The Tax Court Decision No. PUT-010321.99/2024/PP/M.XIVA of 2025 affirmed that a decision that has obtained permanent legal force cannot be challenged again, and that the 3-month deadline stipulated under Article 14 paragraph (6) of Minister of Finance Regulation No. 8/PMK.03/2013 (PMK 8/2013) is a mandatory rule that must be observed. Consequently, all of the taxpayer’s arguments alleging abuse of authority were dismissed.

The core issue in this case was the DGT’s issuance of Regional Office Letter No. S-2146/PJ/WPJ.12/2024, which returned the taxpayer’s second request for the cancellation of the SKPKB. The taxpayer argued that this return letter was an unlawful decision, claiming that the DGT had misused its authority, as the agency should have issued a decision either approving or rejecting the request, not merely returning it.

Furthermore, the taxpayer claimed that the 3-month time limit under Article 14 paragraph (6) of PMK 8/2013 did not apply to them because the second request was based on Article 13 paragraph (3) of PMK 8/2013, concerning formal errors such as the issuance of an SKPKB without an Audit Report (LHP).

The Tax Court Panel of Judges rejected the taxpayer’s arguments. In its legal reasoning, the Court firmly stated that the 3-month deadline under Article 14 paragraph (6) of PMK 8/2013 is a strict procedural requirement that applies to every taxpayer submitting a second request, regardless of which paragraph of Article 13 is invoked. Since the taxpayer submitted the second request beyond the allowed time limit, the DGT’s action in returning the request was lawful and consistent with Article 15 paragraph (3) of PMK 8/2013. The Court even viewed this as an act that upholds legal certainty.

A crucial aspect highlighted by the Court was the existence of a prior Tax Court decision that had already rejected the taxpayer’s first lawsuit involving the same SKPKB. Under Article 77 of the Tax Court Law, such a ruling is final and binding. Therefore, the Court reasoned that processing another administrative request on the same matter would be equivalent to disregarding a final court decision. In other words, a taxpayer cannot repeatedly use administrative remedies after a case has been conclusively decided by the Court.

The implication of this ruling is clear: once a case has been settled through a court decision, the only proper legal remedy for a taxpayer dissatisfied with the outcome is to file a Judicial Review (Peninjauan Kembali or PK) with the Supreme Court, rather than attempting to reopen the matter through repetitive administrative requests.

A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here