Tax administrative disputes often reach a deadlock when taxpayers attempt to use various legal channels simultaneously or sequentially without observing the strict procedural boundaries set by the KUP Law. In the lawsuit between PT PKP and the Director General of Taxes, the Board of Judges reaffirmed the absolute limits of exercising the right to cancel incorrect tax assessments. The core of this dispute originated from PT PKP's attempt to file a request under Article 36 (1) (b) of the KUP Law for a Tax Assessment Letter (SKP) that had previously been ruled upon in an objection process—a move deemed procedurally flawed by the tax authorities.
The Defendant (DGT) argued that the Plaintiff's request for the cancellation of the SKP did not meet the formal requirements stipulated in MoF Regulation No. 8/PMK.03/2013. According to the DGT, the right to request the cancellation of an incorrect tax assessment is only available to taxpayers who have not pursued an objection or if their objection could not be considered. Conversely, the Plaintiff asserted that Article 36 is a taxpayer's prerogative to obtain material justice, which should not be restricted by past formal objection processes, claiming that the rejection constituted a denial of access to justice.
The Board of Judges, in their legal considerations, explicitly rejected the Plaintiff's arguments. The Judges held that legal certainty requires a consistent procedural sequence; once an SKP has been tested through the objection mechanism (Article 25 KUP Law) and an Objection Decision has been issued, the door to file a request under Article 36 (1) (b) of the KUP Law is automatically closed. The Court emphasized that the provisions in the implementing MoF Regulation are legally valid to manage administrative procedures and prevent legal overlaps over the same dispute object.
The implications of this ruling serve as a stern warning for taxpayers to be extremely cautious in formulating litigation strategies. Misunderstanding the hierarchy and relationship between articles in the KUP Law can result in the loss of the right to defend material arguments simply due to a failure to meet formal thresholds. This decision confirms that the Article 36 "justice" pathway is not a backup that can be used at any time after an objection fails without filing an appeal.
The Board of Judges rejected the Plaintiff's lawsuit because the Defendant's action in returning the SKP cancellation request was within the prevailing regulatory corridors. Taxpayers are advised to ensure the correct selection of legal remedies from the onset of a dispute.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id