<![CDATA[Tax law enforcement in Indonesia frequently faces tension between legal certainty and substantive justice. This normative legal study examines the disharmony between these two values in Decision Number 229/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Tbt, issued by the Tebing Tinggi District Court on 8 November 2021, concerning a tax crime under Article 39 paragraph (1) letter (i) of the General Tax Procedures Law. The defendant, Director of CV. Sumatera Jaya, was convicted of deliberately failing to remit collected Value Added Tax for the 2011–2012 fiscal years, causing a state revenue loss of Rp369,237,424.00. The prosecutor demanded two years and six months of imprisonment, yet the panel of judges imposed only six months, departing from the statutory minimum because the party who actually controlled the company's bank account was never prosecuted. Using Gustav Radbruch's legal triad, Lon Fuller's principles of legality, and Satjipto Rahardjo's progressive-law theory, this study finds that the decision satisfied formal legal certainty while producing substantive injustice through selective prosecution. The finding underscores the need for a reconstructive approach that integrates proportionality and substantive justice within a framework of legal certainty. Keywords: Disharmony; Legal Certainty; Justice; Tax Crime; Selective Prosecution Abstrak Penegakan hukum perpajakan di Indonesia kerap menghadapi tegangan antara kepastian hukum dan keadilan substantif. Penelitian hukum normatif ini mengkaji disharmoni antara kedua nilai tersebut dalam Putusan Nomor 229/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Tbt yang diucapkan Pengadilan Negeri Tebing Tinggi pada 8 November 2021, terkait tindak pidana perpajakan berdasarkan Pasal 39 ayat (1) huruf i Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Terdakwa, Direktur CV. Sumatera Jaya, dinyatakan terbukti sengaja tidak menyetorkan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai yang telah dipungut selama masa pajak 2011–2012, sehingga menimbulkan kerugian negara sebesar Rp369.237.424,00. Jaksa menuntut pidana penjara dua tahun enam bulan, namun majelis hakim hanya menjatuhkan enam bulan, menyimpangi batas minimal pemidanaan karena pihak yang sesungguhnya mengendalikan rekening perusahaan tidak pernah dituntut. Dengan menggunakan teori trilogi Radbruch, prinsip legalitas Fuller, dan hukum progresif Rahardjo, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa putusan memenuhi kepastian hukum formal namun menimbulkan ketidakadilan substantif akibat penuntutan selektif. Temuan ini menegaskan perlunya pendekatan rekonstruktif yang mengintegrasikan proporsionalitas dan keadilan substantif dalam bingkai kepastian hukum. Kata Kunci: Disharmoni; Kepastian Hukum; Keadilan; Tindak Pidana Perpajakan; Penuntutan Selektif]]>
