The conflict began when the Respondent (Directorate General of Taxes) corrected the Petitioner’s Input Tax for the June 2013 Tax Period. The basis for correction was the finding that the supplier used Tax Invoice Serial Numbers (NSFP) outside the allocated quota or before the date of the serial number assignment letter as regulated in PER-24/PJ/2012. The Respondent argued that these were Incomplete Tax Invoices, which formally could not be credited according to Article 9, paragraph (8), letter f of the VAT Law.
On the other hand, the Petitioner strongly countered, stating that as a buyer, they had no control or access to verify the date of serial number allocation to the supplier. The Petitioner emphasized that all transactions were genuine, goods were received, and VAT had been paid in full to the supplier, evidenced by valid cash and goods flows.
The Board of Judges, in their deliberation, took a position focusing on substantial justice. The Judges stated that the obligation to issue Tax Invoices according to regulations lies entirely with the seller. Based on Article 16F of the VAT Law, buyers are jointly liable if the tax cannot be collected from the seller; however, if the buyer has already paid the VAT, the right to credit should not be revoked due to third-party administrative errors. This decision confirms that as long as formal identity requirements are met and payment is proven, Input Tax remains creditable.
The implications of this ruling provide legal certainty for Taxpayers to focus more on proof of payment and transaction validity. While formal compliance remains important, the Board of Judges demonstrated that administration beyond a Taxpayer's control should not invalidate their substantive rights. In conclusion, strengthening payment documentation (bank evidence) is the primary key to winning disputes related to Tax Invoice formalities.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id