This dispute centers on the rejection of an application for the reduction of administrative fines under Article 14 paragraph (4) of the KUP Law filed by PT DP. The core legal issue arose when the Plaintiff felt the sanction was unjust, as the delay in issuing tax invoices was caused by technical constraints, while all VAT obligations had been fully settled without causing any loss to state revenue. However, the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) maintained the sanction, stating that the criteria for "oversight or not due to the taxpayer's fault" as per Article 36 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUP Law were not objectively met in this case.
During the trial, it was factually proven that PT DP had indeed issued Tax Invoices late. The Plaintiff's arguments regarding the absence of state loss and the existence of good faith were countered by the principle of legal certainty. The Board of Judges emphasized that the authority to reduce or waive administrative sanctions is an attributive authority or full discretion of the Director General of Taxes. In this regard, the Tax Court examines the case from the perspective of formality and administrative procedures rather than intervening in the substance of discretion, unless there is a clear abuse of power (detournement de pouvoir).
This decision provides a significant implication for Taxpayers: administrative compliance in issuing Tax Invoices is absolute. Neglecting deadlines, even without tax evasion motives, still results in sanctions that are difficult to annul through a lawsuit if the DGT's formal decision-making procedure is correct. This reinforces the importance of stringent tax compliance management to avoid substantial fines.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id