Tax authorities frequently utilize equalization between Corporate Income Tax Returns and VAT Returns as a compliance testing instrument, yet the validity of this method relies heavily on the sufficiency of competent evidence as mandated by Article 29 of the KUP Law and rigorous audit standards to prevent arbitrary tax assessments. This dispute centers on a VAT Tax Base (DPP) correction for the December 2017 period amounting to IDR 9.01 billion imposed on PT GETI. The correction arose from annual turnover equalization differences, all of which were attributed to a single tax period—December—using a method that compared the highest values per customer between Income Tax and VAT data.
The core conflict emerged when the Respondent (Tax Authority) claimed that PT GETI failed to provide adequate supporting documents during the audit to explain the discrepancies. Conversely, PT GETI maintained that all source documents, including the General Ledger (GL) and invoices, had been submitted. The Taxpayer argued that the differences resulted from revenue recognition timing (accruals), reimbursement transactions that do not constitute VAT objects, and reported service exports. PT GETI criticized the Respondent's method of unilaterally selecting the highest value per customer, which led to double-counting corrections and violated the principle of specific tax periods.
The Board of Judges, in its legal considerations, established a significant precedent regarding the weight of evidence. The Judges emphasized that equalization is merely an indirect testing method serving as an initial indication, not conclusive proof for determining tax liability. Given that the Respondent had borrowed the GL and other electronic data, the Court ruled that the Respondent should have conducted a specific, item-by-item transaction search to determine when VAT was due, rather than simply shifting annual numerical differences to the December period. The Judges held that corrections made without specific primary transaction evidence violate the principle of legal certainty and the provisions of Article 8 of PMK-199/2007.
In terms of implication, this ruling reinforces that the burden of proving material truth remains with the tax authorities when making corrections based on indirect methods. The conclusion of this dispute is an absolute victory for PT GETI through a "Grant in Full" (Kabul Seluruhnya) verdict, serving as a reminder for Taxpayers to always synchronize data across different tax types and ensure that reimbursement and accrual documentation are meticulously archived to withstand future equalization tests.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id