Tax administrative procedural disputes have resurfaced in the case between PT DBMJ and the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) regarding the rejection of a preliminary tax refund application. The core of this dispute focuses on the legality of the Notification Letter of Inability to Grant Preliminary Refund issued by the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff's financial statements showed a loss, thus deemed not to meet the formal research criteria under the prevailing regulations.
The conflict began when PT DBMJ filed a request for a Corporate Income Tax refund for the 2022 Tax Year amounting to Rp200,550,467.00 through the mechanism of Article 17D of the KUP Law (Certain Taxpayers). The Defendant rejected the application, arguing that the loss condition in the financial statements required material testing through the audit procedures of Article 17B of the KUP Law, rather than through an administrative-mathematical preliminary research. Conversely, the Plaintiff asserted that procedurally, the rejection letter was delivered late (exceeding the one-month deadline), and substantively, the "loss" reason is never stipulated in PMK 39/2018 as a basis for disqualifying the right to a preliminary refund.
The Tax Court Judges, in their legal consideration, provided a firm resolution. The Bench stated that tax authorities cannot add subjective criteria that are not explicitly regulated in the legislation. Referring to Article 10 of PMK 39/2018, research for preliminary refunds is limited to the accuracy of writing, calculation, and tax payment status. The "loss" reason falls under the domain of material audit, which should be conducted after the refund is granted, not as an initial administrative barrier. Furthermore, the delay in delivering the rejection letter to the Taxpayer resulted in the application being legally deemed granted by operation of law.
The implications of this decision are highly significant for tax practices in Indonesia. This ruling reinforces legal certainty for "Certain Taxpayers" that the right to accelerated refunds is an administrative protection that must not be blocked by the unilateral interpretation of the tax authorities outside the regulatory corridor. For business actors, the PT DBMJ case serves as an important precedent for safeguarding their procedural rights, especially regarding the time limits for public services by the DGT. In conclusion, the authority's adherence to tax procedural law is absolute to maintain the balance between the state revenue function and the protection of Taxpayer rights.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id