The DGT firmly rejected the application for the waiver of administrative sanctions submitted by CV BAM via Decision No. KEP-00208/NKEB/PJ/WPJ.08/2025. This dispute clarifies the high bar set for "taxpayer oversight" under Article 36 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUP Law.
The dispute began when CV BAM received a Tax Collection Letter (STP) for VAT sanctions. The Plaintiff claimed the error was a non-intentional operational oversight. However, the DGT maintained that the oversight did not meet the objective and subjective criteria regulated in PMK Number 8/PMK.03/2013, leaving no grounds for a waiver.
The Tax Court Judges ruled that the DGT's decision followed all formal procedures. Materially, the Panel emphasized that the burden of proof for "oversight" lies solely with the Taxpayer. Because CV BAM failed to present evidence that the error was beyond their control or an extraordinary technical fault, the court rejected the lawsuit in its entirety.
This decision demonstrates that "oversight" cannot be interpreted subjectively or based on a mere confession. For taxpayers, this case serves as a vital reminder: proving "no-fault" status requires extremely strong supporting documentation. Legal certainty in Indonesia prioritizes formal evidence and tangible material proof over claims of operational hardship.
The Court's resolution reinforces that tax sanctions are binding unless proven otherwise through valid and relevant evidence. Taxpayers must be proactive in ensuring reporting accuracy, as sanctions are notoriously difficult to waive through legal channels once an STP has been formally issued.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id