The correction of the Value Added Tax (VAT) base on the delivery of Palm Kernel Expeller (PKE) became the focal point of the dispute between PT DL and the tax authorities. This issue stems from the interpretation of whether PKE, which is technically a production residue, qualifies as animal feed or strategic feed ingredients according to the mandate of tax exemption regulations.
The conflict is rooted in differing classifications of goods between the Petitioner and the Respondent. PT DL argued that PKE is substantively animal feed that should receive VAT exemption facilities based on the spirit of Article 16B of the VAT Law and Supreme Court Decision Number 70 P/HUM/2013. Conversely, the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) through the Respondent emphasized that exemption facilities are limited exceptions (strictissimi juris). The Respondent argued that PKE is categorized as a feed ingredient, but because it is not listed in the detailed list in PMK Number 142/PMK.010/2017, the facility cannot be granted.
The Board of Tax Court Judges, in its resolution, upheld the Respondent's argument. The Judges emphasized that in tax law, exemption facilities must be explicitly written in the positive list of implementing regulations. Through evidence from the Ministry of Agriculture, PKE is indeed a feed ingredient; however, its absence in the PMK appendix constitutes a legal barrier. Furthermore, the fact that the PKE was sold to parties conducting exports, rather than for local livestock consumption, eliminates the legal rationale (ratio legis) for providing the facility, which aims for national food security.
In conclusion, this decision reinforces that the physical characteristics of goods as feed do not automatically grant VAT exemption rights without administrative support in sectoral regulations. For palm oil industry players, documenting goods classification and counterparty profiles is crucial to mitigating the risk of VAT base reclassification in the future.