A juridical dispute regarding the criteria for "Taxpayers with certain gross turnover" became the core conflict between PT Anugerah Kimia Indonesia (PT AKI) and the Directorate General of Taxation. The main focus of this case is whether a Taxpayer who operates on a large scale from the outset remains obliged to submit to the SME Final Income Tax scheme under GR 23/2018 solely due to administrative negligence in failing to submit a notification to use the general tariff upon registration.
The conflict arose when the Respondent (DGT) made an adjustment to the Final Income Tax under Article 4 paragraph (2) on PT AKI's entire turnover in September 2021. The Respondent argued that based on PMK-99/PMK.03/2018, Taxpayers newly registered since 2018 are automatically subject to the 0.5% Final Income Tax unless they submit a notification choosing the Article 17 Income Tax Law tariff. Conversely, PT AKI emphasized that they are a large-scale trading company with paid-up capital of IDR 25 billion and annual turnover reaching IDR 107 billion, thus legally and substantively not the SME tax subject intended by GR 23/2018.
The Tax Court Judges, by majority vote, provided a resolution that prioritizes substance over form. The Assembly argued that GR 23/2018 was designed as a facilitation instrument for small business actors to learn how to maintain bookkeeping. Given that PT AKI's gross turnover far exceeded the IDR 4.8 billion limit even from its first year of operation, PT AKI is not the adressat norma (intended subject) of the regulation. The obligation for written notification was deemed applicable only to Taxpayers who factually meet the SME criteria but choose the general tariff.
The implications of this decision confirm that the gross turnover limit of IDR 4.8 billion is absolute in determining the qualification of GR 23/2018 tax subjects. This ruling serves as an important precedent for large-scale newly established Taxpayers to be more meticulous in synchronizing their Tax Registration Certificate (SKT) status with the reality of their business profile to avoid disputes over automatic final tax rates which could burden company cash flow by preventing the crediting of input VAT or the recognition of fiscal operational costs.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here