Reconstructing the Finality of Tax Court Decisions in Pursuit of Substantive Justice: A Progressive Legal Perspective

Abstract

The absolute finality of Tax Court decisions under Law Number 14 of 2002 creates a structural tension between formal legal certainty and substantive justice, particularly in complex high-value disputes involving transfer pricing, beneficial ownership, and digital transactions that directly affect state revenue and the investment climate. Ordinary remedies are unavailable, and the only remaining avenue—extraordinary judicial review—is confined to narrowly prescribed grounds, leaving fundamental legal errors potentially uncorrected. This study aims to analyse the problematisation of Tax Court finality through the progressive legal perspective of Satjipto Rahardjo and to formulate a reconstructive model that integrates legal certainty with substantive justice. Employing normative legal research that is descriptive-analytical and prescriptive, the study applies statute, conceptual, and historical approaches, analysing primary and secondary legal materials through deductive reasoning guided by the three pillars of progressive law. The research develops the concept of Progressive Finality, which retains finality as the general rule while introducing limited cassation as a narrowly calibrated ordinary remedy confined to fundamental errors of law, serious due-process violations, and manifest judicial mistakes. This model offers a balanced pathway for reforming Articles 33(1) and 77(1) of the Tax Court Law, strengthening judicial accountability and interpretive consistency without undermining fiscal stability or enabling deliberate delay of legitimate tax obligations.