The implementation of Value Added Tax (VAT) provisions that grant the VAT Not Collected facility consistently remains a primary zone of dispute, as reflected in Tax Court Decision Number PUT-010298.16/2021/PP/M.IIB Year 2025. This litigation centered upon a VAT Tax Base (DPP) correction for the December 2018 Tax Period executed by the Director General of Taxes (DGT) against the Taxpayer, PT DOF, where the DGT argued that deliveries reported as VAT Not Collected should legally be treated as taxable under normal VAT. The core conflict revolved around the fulfillment of formal prerequisites for tax facilities, which constitutes a crucial issue in Indonesian VAT litigation.
The core conflict within this dispute was rooted in the differing perspectives between the DGT and the Appellant regarding the validity of deliveries claimed to enjoy the VAT Not Collected facility. The DGT, through its tax audit process, assessed that the Taxpayer failed to present the complete set of supporting documentation required by regulations, thereby demanding that the deliveries be reclassified as standard domestic supplies that are automatically subject to normal Output VAT. This correction aimed to ensure that Output VAT was accurately calculated. Conversely, the Appellant firmly maintained that from a perspective of substance and economic reality, the transactions satisfied all criteria for the VAT facility, such as export deliveries or supplies to specific designated zones as regulated under Government Regulations and Minister of Finance Decrees. The Appellant endeavored to convince the Panel of Judges that formal administrative weaknesses should not retroactively invalidate their substantive statutory rights to the tax facility.
The Panel of Judges, after meticulously evaluating all physical evidence presented, ruled to grant the Appellant's tax appeal in part. This decision reflects the Panel's judicial stance that prioritizes the principle of material truth. For the portion of the correction that was overturned, the Panel opined that the evidence submitted by the Taxpayer—such as shipping records and correspondence documentation—was robust enough to substantiate the factual realization and intended destination of the Taxable Goods (BKP) in line with the VAT Not Collected provisions. Conversely, the adjustments that were sustained represented items where the Appellant failed to provide adequate counter-evidence to successfully refute the DGT's adjustment claims.
The primary implication of this "partially granted" verdict is the reaffirmation that the burden of proof for VAT facilities rests upon the Taxpayer; however, the Tax Court does not always adopt an absolute stance when demanding absolute formal perfection. As long as a Taxpayer remains capable of presenting robust, convincing, and mutually supporting evidence (even if minor formal administrative deficiencies exist), the Panel of Judges tends to overturn the fiscal correction. This ruling serves as a vital operational reference for Taxpayers operating in industries utilizing the VAT Not Collected scheme (such as the palm oil processing industry or exporters), highlighting the absolute necessity for a strict documentation management system to mitigate future audit correction risks.
In conclusion, tax disputes regarding the VAT Not Collected facility will always serve as a critical battleground for evidentiary proof. This ruling stands as a firm reminder that Taxpayers must not only ensure that their transactions are substantively valid but must also preserve absolute perfection in their tax administration to win litigation. The Taxpayer's partial victory demonstrates that arguments backed by robust evidence can successfully overturn DGT adjustments that place excessive, singular emphasis on mere technical formalities. '
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here'
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id