Wrong Legal Avenue! PT SCP’s Lawsuit Dismissed for Challenging Substantive Law via Administrative Procedures

Tax Court Decision Number PUT-007912.99/2023/PP/M.XIB of 2025

Tax Court Decision Number PUT-007912.99/2023/PP/M.XIB of 2025 reaffirms the boundary between the realm of tax objection and administrative lawsuit. This dispute originated when PT Samarinda Central Plaza (SCP) sought to annul an Underpaid Tax Assessment Letter (SKPKB) for Article 4 Paragraph (2) Final Income Tax worth IDR 23 billion through the channel of Article 36 Paragraph (1) point b of the General Tax Provisions and Procedures Law (UU KUP). The central issue lay in the correction of the Tax Base (DPP) performed by the tax auditor using accounts receivable flow test and turnover equalization techniques, which, according to the Taxpayer, did not reflect actual cash facts.

During the trial, it was revealed that the Plaintiff focused its arguments on the substance of the tax calculation, specifically the difference between accrual and cash accounting systems as well as the inaccuracy of accounts receivable data. However, the Defendant successfully proved that the formal audit process had been conducted in accordance with standard operating procedures, including the issuance of the Notification of Audit Findings (SPHP). The Defendant also highlighted inconsistent data and calculation errors in the Plaintiff's bookkeeping discovered during the administrative review process.

In its considerations, the Panel of Judges took a firm stance that a request for cancellation based on Article 36 Paragraph (1) point b of the UU KUP is an administrative facility for the Director General of Taxes to correct clear and manifest errors, not for resolving substantive material disputes. If a Taxpayer disagrees with the correction figures resulting from a procedurally compliant tax audit, the sole legal remedy available is through the Objection mechanism under Article 25 of the UU KUP. By failing to pursue the objection route, the substantive matter of the dispute is deemed legally binding and final.

The implications of this ruling serve as a stern reminder for tax practitioners and corporations not to misuse administrative lawsuit channels as a substitute for tax objections. This procedural failure resulted in the forfeiture of the Taxpayer’s right to defend its substantive arguments. Bookkeeping consistency and strict adherence to formal procedures during tax audits are essential to avoiding the risk of irrevocable tax assessments in the future.