Dari Mazhab Positivisme Ke Hukum Kodrat: Kepastian Hukum Dan Keadilan Substantif Dalam Sengketa Pajak

This study is motivated by the tension between legal certainty and substantive justice in the resolution of tax disputes, particularly when a tax appeal decision upholds the tax authority’s substantive adjustments, while a judicial review of the relevant regulation is granted in favor of the taxpayer on formal grounds, yet the taxpayer’s application for judicial review (Peninjauan Kembali) based on that decision is subsequently rejected. This situation raises questions concerning the influence of legal positivism on judges’ reasoning, the legal implications of judicial review decisions for substantive tax liabilities, and the relevance of natural law theory and substantive justice in evaluating judicial reasoning. This study aims to examine these issues and develop a reconstructed paradigm for tax dispute resolution that integrates legal certainty and substantive justice. It employs normative legal research with a descriptive-analytical design, using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. Data were collected through a literature review of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials and analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that legal positivism provides a framework for assessing statutory validity, procedural compliance, and evidentiary requirements; however, its application should be accompanied by comprehensive and rational judicial reasoning. A judicial review decision does not automatically invalidate an individual tax assessment or qualify as novum (new evidence) in subsequent judicial review proceedings, as its legal consequences depend on the object of review, the operative part of the judgment, the relevance of the underlying legal provisions, and the applicable procedural requirements. Natural law theory and substantive justice, integrated with Gustav Radbruch’s conception of legal certainty, justice, and purposiveness, provide an analytical framework for evaluating the consistency and accountability of judicial reasoning without disregarding positive law. Accordingly, this study proposes a reconstructed paradigm based on three parameters: the legal validity of applicable norms and procedures, the substantive relevance of evidence and judicial decisions, and the accountability of judicial reasoning. The study concludes that an effective tax dispute resolution system must balance legal certainty and substantive justice to strengthen taxpayer protection while safeguarding the state’s revenue interests. Future research should examine a broader range of judicial decisions and incorporate interviews with judges, tax authorities, and tax practitioners to empirically assess the applicability of the proposed framework.