The withdrawal of a tax appeal is an absolute right of the Appellant guaranteed by Indonesian law, yet this action carries significant judicial consequences, primarily the forfeiture of the right to re-appeal the same object. In the PT SAP case, the taxpayer chose to terminate the litigation process regarding the VAT Underpayment Assessment (SKPKB) for December 2018 via an official written statement before the Board of Judges. Procedurally, this triggered Article 39 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court, which mandates the Board of Judges to issue a ruling removing the case from the court’s docket under an "Inadmissible" (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard) verdict.
The core conflict originally stemmed from a disagreement over the tax corrections made by the Director General of Taxes (DGT), which escalated to the appeal stage. However, before the court could delve into the substantive merits of the case, the Appellant submitted a written request to withdraw the appeal. Through formal verification, the Board of Judges confirmed that the signatory of the withdrawal letter was the authorized Director as per the company's Deed of Association. This step was crucial to ensure that the intent to withdraw was executed by personnel with the appropriate legal standing, thereby preventing any formal defects in the termination process.
In its legal considerations, the Board of Judges stated that a withdrawal made during the trial phase must be resolved through a Board Ruling rather than a mere Chairman's Decree, as the case had already entered the hearing stage. Consequently, the Board provided a resolution in the form of an "Inadmissible" verdict, which permanently extinguished the dispute. The impact analysis for the Taxpayer is the reinstatement of the full legal force of the DGT's original tax assessment, meaning the tax liabilities stipulated in the initial SKPKB are final and must be paid in full.
In conclusion, while withdrawing an appeal offers a swift exit for taxpayers to end litigation, such a decision must be weighed carefully as it is final and irreversible. The PT SAP case reinforces that the Tax Court prioritizes procedural compliance, where the validity of the applicant's identity and adherence to trial timelines remain primary parameters even when a dispute does not conclude with a substantive material examination.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id