Won at the Supreme Court but Interest Not Paid? Here is Why the Tax Court Ruled in Favor of PT SAKI Against the Tax Office.

Tax Ruling: Mandatory Interest Compensation and Taxpayer Rights (PT SAKI Case)

A taxpayer's constitutional right to interest compensation often faces administrative hurdles, but Tax Court Decision Number PUT-001462.99/2024/PP/M.IVB of 2025 stands as a crucial precedent. It emphasizes that the right to interest compensation of 2% per month is a mandatory statutory command following a final legal victory.

The Conflict: Bankruptcy Status vs. Statutory Mandate

PT SAKI, currently in bankruptcy, claimed interest compensation of IDR 16.75 billion after winning a Judicial Review (PK). The Tax Office (KPP) refused to issue the Decree (SKPIB), arguing that under GR 50/2022, compensation must account for other tax debts. The Plaintiff's Receiver countered that Article 27A of the KUP Law explicitly requires payment regardless of bankruptcy status once a binding decision results in an overpayment.

Judicial Consideration: Interest as a "State Debt"

The Board of Judges sided with legal certainty. They ruled that the requirements of Article 27A KUP had been fully met. The Court opined that delaying the SKPIB due to bankruptcy or protracted debt verification lacked a legitimate basis to revoke the Plaintiff's rights. The verdict ordered the Defendant to immediately issue the SKPIB, affirming that this right arises automatically by law.

Implications: Protection for Restructuring Companies

This decision affirms that interest compensation is a "state debt" to the taxpayer. It serves as a warning to tax authorities not to use administrative procedures as a tool to suspend payment obligations. For companies undergoing restructuring or bankruptcy, this ruling ensures that their material rights remain protected despite their operational status.

Conclusion

In conclusion, PT SAKI's victory reaffirms Article 27A of the KUP Law as a shield for taxpayer rights. Taxpayers are encouraged to persist in legal action if administrative rights are not promptly fulfilled post-appeal. Substantive justice must prevail over bureaucratic obstacles.

A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here