The dispute between PT BP, Tbk. and the tax authorities has triggered a crucial debate regarding the boundaries of VAT objects in banking transactions, specifically concerning the delivery of Taxable Goods (BKP) in the form of land and buildings through the Foreclosed Assets (AYDA) mechanism. The Respondent applied a positive adjustment to the VAT Base, arguing that the sale of AYDA constitutes a routine banking activity that meets the criteria for BKP delivery under Article 4 paragraph (1) letter a of the VAT Law, given the significant frequency and value of the transactions. However, the legal substance indicates that the bank's position is merely as a collateral holder to recover debt rights from non-performing loans.
The core of the conflict lies in the interpretation of whether the sale of AYDA is an independent business activity of the bank or simply a sequence of settling the debtor's obligations. The Respondent argued that when the bank sells AYDA, a transfer of ownership rights occurs, which is subject to VAT. On the other hand, PT BP, Tbk. emphasized that based on the Banking Law and the Mortgage Law (UU Hak Tanggungan), AYDA remains a collateral asset whose civil law ownership remains with the debtor until it is sold. The bank only executes a regulatory mandate to liquidate the guarantee without seeking a price margin, but rather to cover the principal debt and interest.
The Tax Court Judges, in their resolution, upheld the Taxpayer's argument. The Judges opined that the AYDA transaction, from foreclosure to sale to a third party, is a single unified process of debt-receivable settlement. Pursuant to Article 1A paragraph (2) letter b of the VAT Law, the delivery of BKP for debt collateral is explicitly declared as a non-taxable delivery. The Bench emphasized that in economic and legal substance, there is no change in the bank's function into a real estate dealer; thus, the Respondent's correction was declared to have no strong legal basis.
The implication of this decision reaffirms legal certainty for the banking sector in managing Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratios. This ruling serves as an important precedent that the VAT exemption for debt collateral remains valid even if the sale process is conducted through a bank. This prevents a double tax burden that could hinder the liquidity of national banking. For other Taxpayers, this case serves as a reminder to strengthen arguments based on industry-specific regulations (such as the Banking Law) that interact with tax law.
In conclusion, the court affirmed that the nature of the transaction takes precedence over the mere frequency of the activity. The sale of AYDA by a bank is purely a credit recovery mechanism exempted from VAT.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id