Taxpayer Victory: DGT Cannot Reject SKP Cancellation Requests Solely Due to Formally Failed Objections

Tax Dispute: Constitutional Rights vs. Formal Administrative Restrictions (PT. PKP Case)

The Directorate General of Taxation (DGT) often cites formality reasons to return applications for the reduction or cancellation of incorrect tax assessments (SKP); however, Tax Court Decision Number PUT-011616.99/2024/PP/M.XIIB Year 2025 reaffirms that a taxpayer's constitutional rights must not be hindered by restrictive administrative rules. This dispute arose when PT. PKP filed an application under Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the KUP Law regarding a Corporate Income Tax Assessment (SKPKB) deemed materially incorrect. The Defendant (DGT) refused to process the application by issuing Letter Number S-339/PJ/WPJ.17/2024, arguing that since the Taxpayer had previously filed an objection which was declared inadmissible (formally rejected), pursuant to PMK No. 8/PMK.03/2013, the Article 36 application could not be resubmitted.

Core Conflict: Ministerial Regulations vs. Constitutional Court Ruling

The core of the conflict in this case lies in the contradiction between ministerial-level regulations (PMK) and the fundamental rights of Taxpayers as strengthened by the Constitutional Court. The Defendant insisted that the administrative procedures in the PMK are binding, where an Article 36 application can only be filed if the Taxpayer does not file an objection. Conversely, PT. PKP, through its legal counsel, argued that a formal rejection of an objection means the merits of the dispute have never been examined by either the tax authority or the judiciary. Closing a Taxpayer's access to testing the material truth of a tax assessment simply due to a procedural error at the objection stage is an act that injures the sense of justice.

Judicial Consideration: Supremacy of Material Truth

The Tax Court Panel, in its resolution, took a progressive stance by directly referring to Constitutional Court Ruling Number 7/PUU-XVI/2018. The Panel opined that the phrase in Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the KUP Law must be interpreted broadly to provide legal protection for Taxpayers. In its legal considerations, the Panel stated that as long as the objection application was not considered on its merits (not entering material examination), the Taxpayer retains the right to pursue the Article 36 route to cancel an incorrect tax assessment. Therefore, the Defendant's action of returning the application without conducting a material research was declared legally improper.

Analysis and Implications: A Precedent for Tax Litigation

An analysis of this decision shows significant implications for tax litigation practice in Indonesia. This ruling serves as a strong precedent that implementing regulations such as PMK must not limit rights granted by Law, especially following a constitutional interpretation by the Constitutional Court. For PT. PKP, this victory reopens the door to prove that the tax assessment issued by the DGT is indeed substantively incorrect. In general, this ruling reminds tax authorities to prioritize material truth rather than merely taking refuge behind rigid formal procedures.

In conclusion, the Tax Court has upheld the supremacy of law by annulling the DGT's letter returning the application. Taxpayers now have a firmer legal basis to continue fighting for material justice over defective SKPs, even if the previous objection path failed on formal requirements.

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